Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Male Homosexuality related to altered brain function

Nov 30, 2003 4:57AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Not bad Toni BUT...thinking here
Dec 2, 2003 3:14AM PST
"And WHOSE blood sample was this taken from? A homosexual or a straight or a bisexual?"

Read what is readily available at the link and you will find out Toni. You shouldn't be surprised but you might.

Where are the PROOFS? Same place Toni. The CDC has documented their sources fairly adequately.

If you haven't found the definitive male homosexual links you haven't read much of what is available at the link Toni. Matter of fact your responding so soon shows how little of it you have read.

Even Dave will reluctantly admit the beginnings here in the US before he tries to divert to other parts of the world where Type-II is becoming more common.
- Collapse -
Point of clarification ...
Dec 2, 2003 3:43AM PST

I'm guessing (based on Ed's other posts) that he is still referring to HIV/AIDS in the US rather than globally. My guess is that you are talking about the origin of HIV globally, not in the US.

Although it appears that most of the spread of HIV in Africa is associated with heterosexual promiscuity, the epidemiology (so far) is somewhat different in this country. In this country HIV started out as primarily a disease related to male homosexuals who had large numbers of partners for sex. The common element between Africa and the US is promiscuity.

I have not read the links Ed provided, but based on my own reading I don't think anybody has really been able to answer the question or when/how the disease jumped from primates to people. The spread was probably worsened by the fact that in many African countries (particularly South Africa under Apartheid) the men frequently work far from home and are not always expected to be chaste. We can guess that some of those men eventually spread the disease to North American men who later spread the virus widely among the gay community before the disease was recognized.

- Collapse -
Re:Point of clarification ...
Dec 2, 2003 5:11AM PST

You are right Bill (I have tried to be pretty clear that I reference the US) and I think most researchers are thinking that the link is most likely similar to that found with SARS in China--a susceptable "host" using the infected animal as food somewhere along the line as opposed to beastiality.

- Collapse -
Re: Point of clarification ...
Dec 2, 2003 5:29AM PST

Hi, Dr. Bill.

You're correct -- except the current stats suggest (by extrapolation of current trends) that even in this country, homosexual activity will be responsible for less than half the new cases by the end of the decade. But more importantly, why is this question even an issue for a Christian, who believes that we are our brothers' keepers.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
no they don't Dave ...
Dec 2, 2003 5:42AM PST

the current stats still indicate that MALE HOMOSEXUALS are not only continuing to be the most prolific causes but also the greatest number of new cases.

The figures show a slowing in the number of new cases but one needs to do a lot of ignoring and massively unintuitive and incorrect extrapolations to arrive at your conclusions.

- Collapse -
I'm not sure I understand your point ...
Dec 2, 2003 6:15AM PST

You said " ... why is this question even an issue for a Christian, who believes that we are our brothers' keepers." I'm not sure I follow you there.

The point to my post was that Edward and Toni do not appear to recognize that each is not clearly addressing the other's statements. My read is that Toni is posting about HIV history globally, but Ed is trying to focus on HIV history in the US. The result is that they will continue to go around in circles.

I don't see how that has any connection to faith.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Not bad Toni BUT...Edward
Dec 2, 2003 4:38AM PST
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/focuson/hiv00/default.htm

<B>Before HIV infection became widespread in the human population, AIDS-like syndromes occurred extremely rarely, and almost exclusively in individuals with known causes of immune suppression, such as chemotherapy and underlying cancers of certain types.</B> A marked increase in unusual infections and cancers characteristic of severe immune suppression was first <B>recognized</B> in the early 1980s in homosexual men who had been otherwise healthy and had no recognized cause for immune suppression. An infectious cause of AIDS was suggested by geographic clustering of cases, links among cases by sexual contact, mother-to-infant transmission, and transmission by blood transfusion... Since the early 1980s, HIV and AIDS have been repeatedly linked in time, place and population group; the appearance of HIV in the blood supply has preceded or coincided with the occurrence of AIDS cases in every country and region where AIDS has been noted. Individuals of all ages from many risk groups ? including men who have sex with men, infants born to HIV-infected mothers, heterosexual women and men, hemophiliacs, recipients of blood and blood products, healthcare workers and others occupationally exposed to HIV-tainted blood, and male and female injection drug users have all developed AIDS with only one common denominator: infection with HIV.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/timeline80-87.html

A rare disease was seen in two gay men; No indication that this was exclusive to gay men. How many straights went misdiagnosed?

Still no proof that the first case of HIV came from a gay man. Please provide a link. I found nothing that linked to where the blood sample came from. Please post a link to direct questions.
- Collapse -
Selective reading Toni...
Dec 2, 2003 5:19AM PST

further reading would have shown that it was not related to homosexuals until after it became apparent that it was showing up massively and exclusively in homosexuals in the early detections. Non homosexual cases were not found until a few years after the initial problem and cause was discovered.

I will not link directly to the information as it is available at the CDC site and looking for it just might get some other information read that you would otherwise miss which would allow one to assume that Dave's misdirection and inaccuracies was on target.

Lets come out of Africa and concentrate on the problem at home for now.

- Collapse -
Edward...thread limitations are making me crazy
Dec 2, 2003 8:34PM PST

I couldn't post to your immediate post, but found this an interesting statement by you: I will not link directly to the information as it is available at the CDC site and looking for it just might get some other information read that you would otherwise miss which would allow one to assume that Dave's misdirection and inaccuracies was on target.

Considering the huge amount of information at that site, I didn't think my request for a link to a quote you made was so out of line that you wouldn't comply. If I wanted an entire library of information I would go to work for the cdc and get it that way. I asked for a link...you won't provide it. I guess we end here.

Africa, I believe, is where it started globaly and it's killing straight people in the millions there. If you can't provide a link to where the blood sample came from, and can't provide a link to where in the world HIV/AIDS started and HOW, then how can you have credibity regarding your statements that it's gay behavior here in the US that is to blame?

This disease wasn't even known to exist as a threat for years, so how do we know that some 'in the closet' straight didn't have 'normal' sex in Africa, get infected, and then come out of the closet here in the States?

Granted, promiscuity spread it, but that was also the case in Africa and other countries. For you to lay blame directly at the feet of gay men is irresponsible in my opinion. The promiscuous attitude of the entire world during the 60's, 70's, and 80's is to blame...not one community.

The numbers of new AIDS patients has dropped dramatically here in the US; Africa is devastated by this disease. You can't blame homosexuality on that country's pain. If we don't stop it in Africa, the global result will be horrendous.

- Collapse -
Re:Edward...thread limitations are making me crazy
Dec 2, 2003 11:09PM PST

First Toni, to respond directly to a specific post (when no more responses message shows) open the post you want to respond to in your browser. Look at the browser's location or Address bar (it will look something like this: http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threa...). Change JUST the 5208 portion of the URL to 5224 (the URL will now read something like this: http://reviews.cnet.com/5224-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threa...) and either click the GO button or press the enter key. A response window will open up and you can continue the thread logically.

Next, just because I do not provide a requested link to a specific piece of information DOES NOT lessen credibility as the entire site is available to be looked over. One does not need to provide the dewey decimal number if telling another that the info is in the Encyclopaedia Britanica at the public library.

Continued...

- Collapse -
continuation...
Dec 2, 2003 11:29PM PST

Although I will STILL not provide a direct link I will aid you in your search with the following information:

"The man from whom the sample was taken lived in Leopoldville in the Belgian Congo, now Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. His fate is unknown. The man's blood had been preserved as part of a study of blood diseases and was first identified as HIV-positive in 1986, when researchers performed basic immunological tests on it and 1,212 other samples obtained from African patients between 1959 and 1982.

You can actually search the CDC site using that info (remember, I said you may be surprised but shouldn't be).

Alternatively you can find some of the info on other sites and work from there http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1200/n6_v153/20324659/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.aegis.com/news/ct/2000/CT000104.html (especially interesting by the way)

The credibility comes from the fact that with little effort ALL of what I have stated is provable using official information at official sites such as the CDC.

As Dr. Bill tried to point out to you I am less concerned about AIDS in Africa than here in this country. Contain and control the problem here before tossing possibly needed funds to other countrys. If your family members have lethal heaqlth problems do you tend their needs or pay for mine Toni?

- Collapse -
Re:continuation...Interesting as it is
Dec 3, 2003 12:15AM PST

You have confirmed a part of what I've been saying all along. That HIV originated in Africa, and until, unless you provide a link that shows that this man was homosexual and HOW HE contracted it, you have no proof that this disease wasn't born another way and shouldn't be condemning one lifestyle for this destruction.

>>>"The man from whom the sample was taken lived in Leopoldville in the Belgian Congo, now Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. His fate is unknown. The man's blood had been preserved as part of a study of blood diseases and was first identified as HIV-positive in 1986, when researchers performed basic immunological tests on it and 1,212 other samples obtained from African patients between 1959 and 1982.>>>

As for the comment about how I can find everything you've stated at that cdc site, I can also find any book I want in a library, but I shouldn't have to read every book in the joint in order to find information I have specifically asked for, which is what you are suggesting I do at a site that has hundreds of links on it. If you know specifically which link you found your information at, provide the links or forget it. I'm not swimming upstream for hours just to find a tidbit in the mix.

TONI

- Collapse -
What does it matter really?
Dec 3, 2003 1:07AM PST

I find this argument over the origin of AIDS to be fairly irrelevant. It may help in guiding international public health policy the next time one of these viruses "evolves", but it does little to address the current issue.

This whole sub-discussion came about when Ed referred to tax dollar spending on AIDS. It is FACT that the "incubator populations" (for lack of a better term) for the disease here in the US were initially homosexual men and quickly spread to IV drug users due to the method of drug consumption. While there are those at the extreme who believe the disease was some justice from God, I don't think Ed, myself, or most of the others who point out the connection between homosexual males as primary vectors in the US are among those.

Toni, even with new infections, a small percentage of the population (men actively engaging in homosexual activity comprising ~2% of the male population) is still responsible for over 40% of the cases. A large portion of the additional cases (male and female) result from IV drug usage. AIDS is blood born, so sexual activity that increases the risk of blood exposure is riskier. That's where anal sex comes in, and why this issue has almost nothing to do with lesbian women or even being gay when you get down to the nitty gritty.

I mean millions more are stricken by kidney disease than are stricken with AIDS. Most if not all of those have no behavioral means by which to avoid their disease. Since the late 80's when it became known just how AIDS was transmitted, and certainly by the mid 90's with all the media blitz PSA's, sex ed, etc. ad infinitum, it is an almost TOTALLY AVOIDABLE disease. AIDS remains a disease that most Americans have an infinitessimal chance of contracting with a modicum of personal restraint and responsibility. Go to the websites of gay advocacy groups and look at their health information. They don't focus on behavior modification. I'm sorry Toni, but if somehow my husband came down with an incurable infectious disease that was only transmitted by sexual intercourse, we would find other ways to express our love physically, and, lets be blunt, but if it came to it, there are plenty of other ways to express love outside genital stimulation. It seems that despite the picture of loving gay couples being presented, a large portion of the male homosexual population does not have the respect or love for their fellow man to behave responsibly in the face of a mortal threat. Same goes for promiscuous heterosexuals who put their own immediate physical sexual urges (or addictions) above love or even just respect of partner and ultimately self. Some might just call that immoral.

(to be continued)

- Collapse -
Re:What does it matter really? continued
Dec 3, 2003 1:08AM PST

Bottom line, if male homosexuals were coupling off into loving, monogamous, long term relationships as the gay marriage proponents would like us to believe, there is no excuse for there to even be any new cases. I'm sorry but I don't think the American taxpayer should have to pay for all the studies, programs, condoms, and now expensive anti-viral cocktails for those who simply go out and continue to hook up with men whose names they don't even know for unprotected sex. Whenever I think about my gay male friends I say a little prayer that they are being safe and I will see them again.

The consensual behavior between adult males in the privacy of their bedrooms does indeed impact society as a whole and certainly public health policy and the direction of public health funds. Acknowledging that gets one labeled a homophobic and accused of hatred. That's no way to win the hearts and minds towards acceptance of a behavior that most people, if they really spoke their minds w/o the PC muzzle, consider abnormal -- as in outside the norm for what God, or even nature, intended.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Re:What does it matter really? continued
Dec 3, 2003 2:22AM PST

>>>Bottom line, if male homosexuals were coupling off into loving, monogamous, long term relationships, there is no excuse for there to even be any new cases.>>
Exactly the same could be said for the heterosexuals who are promiscuous, Evie. This disease was already rampant among straights in Africa, and in communities where they had little access to other communities just because of geography. Somewhere along the line it jumped the ocean and got here...and I believe that HOW it got here is just as important to know WHEN.
This is important to know is because it wasn't just the male gay community that was probably spreading it. Many straights were also promiscuous and although not as much as gay men, I am curious about how many cases in straight people were misdiagnosed early in the game and infected others. The emphasis has always been on the gay men community and went ignored for many years, which allowed ignorance to spread it even faster. Was this because the gay community has been considered a 'throw-away' society for a long time, and if many died, who cared? It was that attitude that contributed heavily to the spread of the disease more than anything else. Straights were listed as dying from natural causes, like pneumonia when they could have actually had AIDS, and gays were left ignorant.
Many straights practice anal sex as part of their sex lives and just as easily is at risk...but I can't find where anybody has ever bothered to research whether straights actually brought it to the US through sexual or blood contact with an infected person from an African country. And if there is a possibility of that, could the first gay man have been infected innocently through a blood transfusion?
To blame one society for this killer is shameful in my opinion when nobody knows how it started here in the first place.

- Collapse -
While I have seen some ...
Dec 3, 2003 3:12AM PST

... like Pat Robertson and those who share his views blame homosexuals for the existence of AIDS, this is really NOT what most are saying.

Toni, AIDS is indeed two different "animals" in the US and Africa, just like we don't have an ongoing problem in this country with malaria. FACT -- the disease was "incubated" and spread through the male homosexual community. By exerting certain rights coupled with political correctness, the normal means of disease control were not implemented by our government and infectious disease control officials.

Yes, at this point I think the gay male population as a whole does bear considerable responsibility for the spread of the virus. By opposing screening to protect medical professionals, but not getting tested regularly when it is available free, but continuing to engage in MSM even when infected, by continuing to have unprotected MSM sex, etc. Yes, promiscuous heterosexuals are guilty as well. As are IV drug users.

There is as great or greater reason for anal sex to be illegal as there is for smoking in bars to be outlawed on the simple basis of public health policy. Because of irresponsible sexual behavior of adults, babies are now mandated to be vaccinated against a virus they stand almost no chance of ever contracting (Hep B) in many states. Millions upon millions of dollars are wasted in having to study the spread of what is an almost totally preventable fatal illness and that is pathetic.

Toni, you are grasping at straws with your rationalizations re: heterosexual transmission and misdiagnosis, etc. To this day, 42% of new infections are directly attributed to MSM -- a practice engaged in by perhaps 2% of the population. Given the prevalence of heterosexual contact, the cross over into the population should have resulted in the % due to MSM much closer to the representation of gay men in the population by now, especially with the more casual sexual practices. It hasn't.

Sorry Toni, anal sex is a primary means of transmission of AIDS and other viruses here in the US. This is all Ed intially referred to when the "what is done in the privacy of one's home doesn't effect anybody else" line was repeated. The massive deferment of public funds to combat a disease that effects a small percent of our population and is almost entirely preventable is indeed a valid consideration as regards the benefits of certain behaviors and lifestyles to the overall public good.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
excellent post - but...
Dec 3, 2003 10:53AM PST

I hadn't read any of this thread until today - saw the size, shuddered. We agree in our view of this softweare.

The but...

the incidence of anal sex among married couples and promiscuous heterosexuals seems to get ignored by the "blame the homosexuals" group at every stage.

I grew up in the 50's and 60's - the so called "well behaved years" I keep reading about. When "father new best". Well, I knew about teachers having sex with students then, I knew about anal sex between men and men, between men and women. And so did all my peers.

Considering the population percentage you keep raising, its is 50 times more likely that a heterosexual male brought the disease from Africa to the USA than it is likely to be a homosexual.

Everyone here should know quite well that promiscuity became socially acceptable for men away from home during WWI and WWII (except for one's own spouse, of course). Several of the popular books of the mid 60's were based on the brothels of Hawaii. Why did it expand after WWII? PENICILLIN.

There'd always been brothels and free lancers, always will. But promiscuity in ALL its forms became far more common after cures for the diseases arrived. Just as it accelerated with the pill.

The discussions keep focusing on blood, and that anal sex increases the likelihood of blood contact. Well, I'm sorry for the convinced, but blood is only one vector. Ed's beloved CDC says: Question: How is HIV passed from one person to another?
Answer: HIV transmission can occur when blood, semen (including pre-seminal fluid, or "pre-***"), vaginal fluid, or breast milk from an infected person enters the body of an uninfected person.

HIV can enter the body through a vein (e.g., injection drug use), the **** or rectum, the ******, the *****, the mouth, other mucous membranes (e.g., eyes or inside of the nose), or cuts and sores. Intact, healthy skin is an excellent barrier against HIV and other viruses and bacteria.

These are the most common ways that HIV is transmitted from one person to another:

by having sexual intercourse (anal, vaginal, or oral sex) with an HIV-infected person;

by sharing needles or injection equipment with an injection drug user who is infected with HIV; and

from HIV-infected women to babies before or during birth, or through breast-feeding after birth.


So, sexual lubrication, male or female, seminal fluid, semen and breast milk are all HIV vectors.

See:
http://www.youandaids.org/About%20HIVAIDS/Transmission/index.asp
http://www.thebody.com/cdc/faq/transmissionFAQ.html#one
http://www.thebody.com/cdc/faq/transmission.html

Ian

- Collapse -
For starters ...
Dec 4, 2003 12:50AM PST

... when threads get this long and go in as many directions, it's easy to lose focus or key in on exactly what it is that who said. I maintain that the origin of the AIDS virus in the US is largely irrelevant. I'm not one who blames the homosexual for it's inception or believes that the disease was God's way of punishing the behavior or anything like that. However, the spread of the disease is largely the result of two activities -- MSM and IV drug use. Much of the infection outside of these populations came from relationships where one partner engaged in MSM or IV drug use and brought it home to an unsuspecting spouse or partner. Yes, the promiscuous heterosexual is not off the hook either, but even if I were to sleep with a different heterosexual non-IV drug using man every week, my chances of getting AIDS are next to nil because his chances of being infected are also next to nil.

I'm quite a bit younger than you Ian. By high school, our sex ed got pretty graphic, but I can honestly say that while we used to use the term for a bundle of twigs as a taunt/tease in grade school, and I "married" in the second grade, there just wasn't a whole lot of awareness at that age about the sexual nature of either. I pity parents these days who would like to see their own kids grow up in such an atmosphere. There is really little doubt that our children are being sexualized at a much earlier age, and I don't believe that is progress.

As I said in a reply to DK, I believe, nobody is disputing that the virus can be transmitted through other means. Just that the most efficient means is through blood, and as sexual practices go, anal sex is the one most likely to expose the participants to that route.

Anal sex is a practice with no benefit to the participants. OTOH, it can be very detrimental from a health point of view as the anatomy was designed for a one way excretion of solid human waste, not to mention disease transmission. Please don't regail me again with all the special pleasures only anal sex can provide. I've also read about the intense experience of erotic asphyxiation, but that practice is never recommended either. If it weren't for the pc nature of the issue, it would be a no-brainer to promote abstinence and implement policies to curtail, not condone, practices dangerous to one's health such as anal intercourse.

Yep, as bad consequences are mitigated, risky behavior increases because of lower risk. This is being seen again with AIDS as many see the retroviral cocktails as a cure. I see this all as selfishness. Nobody wants anyone to ever judge them for acting on every impulse to satisfy their immediate needs. To heck with the husband/wife, girl/boyfriend, kids, potential kids, family, friends. It's all about having sex when the urge arises and there should be no consequences whatsoever. I don't see this as progress, enlightenment or liberation in any way shape or form!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Well said. Loved the last line.
Dec 5, 2003 9:21PM PST

I do feel that an heterosexual cannot validly comment on the benefits or otherwise to a relationship of homosexuals, in terms of psychological and physiological benefits of orgasm through sex appropriate to their physiology.

Anyway, two questions

Words whose acronymn is MSM? Male Sexual Misbehaviour?

You keep using the bundle of sticks allusion. Try as I might, I just cannot work out the expletive to which you are referring. ?

Ian

- Collapse -
Re:Well said. Loved the last line.
Dec 6, 2003 12:38AM PST

Hi Ian,

MSM is the acronym used as an abbreviation in most studies (like by our CDC) for Men having Sex with Men.

Bundle of twigs = fa@@ot

I was not aware that the homosexual had a different human physiology. Sorry, but anal intercourse is a practice that whether heterosexual or homosexual is detrimental to the health of the human. That it may enhance sexual pleasure for some doesn't change that any more than other practices. I think it's safe to assume that some get increased pleasure reaching orgasm while being oxygen deprived, or there probably wouldn't be people attempting to achieve this by suffocating themselves nearly to death. But I know of no health professional that would recommend engaging in such, and I doubt any would actually recommend anal intercourse from a health benefit perspective either.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:excellent post - but...
Dec 4, 2003 9:41AM PST

Hello Ian,

Even Dave is willing to admit that the AIDS problem here in the US was traced to and attributed to one "singularly promiscuous" male homosexual with an airline.

No one is forgetting about anal sex between male and female because that is exactly how some of the females contracted the Type-I HIV that is most prevalent here and most commonly passed through homosexual activities and needle sharing.

Actually there is a possibility that some, like Dave, (who claim in the face of WHO and CDC stats) are ignoring those cases in their eagerness to claim that it is becoming a heterosexual disease.

- Collapse -
Its not nearly as clear cut as you portray it Ed, in fact its not as clear cut as the CDC portrays it.
Dec 5, 2003 9:28PM PST
- Collapse -
Of course there is "contention" in the field...
Dec 7, 2003 12:06AM PST

when hasn't there been?

You might do well to not rely strictly on "New Scientist" as they are known for less than accurate reporting and tend to be on the order of "The National Enquirer" and others of that ilk.

The FACTS remain and have remained relatively constantly regarding the origin, the mutations to new types and strains over the years as well as the direct link to homosexual lifestyle.

There is "contention" regarding syphlis after all these many years too--was it a sheep or a goat? Was it beastiality or consumption of contaminated meat? The links are there and the primary method of propagation is well known but still arguable if one has no wish to face facts and place blame where it belongs.

- Collapse -
NO IT WASN'T...
Dec 4, 2003 9:52AM PST
This disease was already rampant among straights in Africa, and in communities where they had little access to other communities just because of geography. Somewhere along the line it jumped the ocean and got here...and I believe that HOW it got here is just as important to know WHEN.

When it was initially discovered MOST cases were related to homosexual activies EVEN IN AFRICA Toni. There were VERY FEW females with the disease until the Type-II variant showed up but once it did nature took its course and now AIDS is pretty much genderless IN AFRICA and some few other countries where TYPE-II HIV is the predominant version.

While cases were misdiagnosed for BOTH straight persons and gay persons AT FIRST, as the symptoms of the disease became known prior diagnosis were re-looked at and some were indeed found to be AIDS while others weren't.

It was called the Gay Men's Disease for a very good and valid reason--the preponderance of cases were linked DIRECTLY to male homosexuals/bisexuals.
- Collapse -
and again, read the QUESTIONS brought out in the New Scientist
Dec 6, 2003 6:24PM PST

articles. What you said was perceived as truth, and the CDC is staffed by humans, whose own bigotry and preferences affect their actions, as ours do to all of us.

What you said is questioned by biological scientists investigating the situation.

Ian

- Collapse -
Why?
Dec 7, 2003 12:24AM PST

All is covered in CDC and WHO papers as well as in your own Department of Health http://www.health.gov.au/sitemap.htm

Why rely on a mag tht often publishes less than accurate information (as does the "National Enquirer") in some apparent belief that all views regardless of validity must be aired? Yes, there are some real gems but most is chaff.

If you don't want to rely on your own government's official papers or the WHO then try AMA or your own country's version of the same.

Better yet compare world wide:
http://eng.moph.go.th/ContentDetails.asp?intContentID=166&strOrgID=001

PS - are you implying that these "biological scientists" you mention are not human? You seem to be by your choice of words.

- Collapse -
PS - Toni...
Dec 4, 2003 10:04AM PST

Do a search for AIDS and Patient zero
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22aids%22+with+%22patient+zero%22

You will find that it is Gaetan Dugas, the Canadian flight attendant claimed to have been responsible for passing the disease on to over 250 "men" per year. In addition to Canada his flight schedules often landed him in New York and California which interestingly enough were the largest incubating grounds for HIV also.

He was definitely a homosexual and definitely traced as the root cause in many cases.

Be aware that you need to concentrate on terminology here because patient zero, although the first "contact" is not necessarily the first patient and aquired it somewhere else USUALLY. Here is a fairly good explanation to clarify it for you:

Patient Zero is the first known person with AIDS. Patient Zero (aka The Index Patient) is not necessarily or even usually the first person to be diagnosed. Often Patient Zero is dead before health authorities get to the scene. Instead, Patient Zero is the person from whom all subsequent infections are received, directly or more likely indirectly. Think of it as a telephone tree, with Patient Zero at the head. In the case of AIDS, it's believed it was a Canadian Airlines worker who caught the disease in Africa and brought it back to Canada, where it quickly spread to the U.S. Note that in this case his Patient Zero status really only applies to North America, since he was probably not responsible for the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of cases in Africa and other countries. http://www.westga.edu/~physics/mil/94.htm

- Collapse -
How much MORE funding should AIDS research have?
Dec 3, 2003 3:52PM PST

Should it have more than other diseases that affect even greater numbers of people? More than cancers? If there is concern for funding should there not be concern for how its transmission can be impeded or stopped? Should the result of risky behaviour become the justification for increased funding above other diseases? Every year there are a certain number of dollars devoted to studying different diseases and devising treatments, so why should AIDS receive a greater share of those dollars to the detriment of efforts to help those afflicted with other diseases? Control of risky sexual behaviour would do more for the reduction of HIV cases than any increased amount of dollars spent on HIV research.

- Collapse -
AS MUCH AS IT TAKES TO FIND THE CURE
Dec 3, 2003 10:07PM PST

Forget about your reluctance to spend money finding a cure for what you consider to be 'risky' behavior, James. ANY manner of sex anymore is considered to be 'risky' behavior....including married heterosexuals since the chances of having one of those partners cheat and infecting the other partner is just as great now as having a gay man have sex with an infected partner unwittingly. Millions of HETEROSEXUALS as well as homosexuals have this killer disease all over the world now. Saving ALL human lives and future lives is all that's important now.

TONI

- Collapse -
A better application of funds ...
Dec 8, 2003 2:14AM PST

... is to seek cures for UNpreventable diseases Toni. There is always a limit to the funds available for such, and, whether one thinks billions should be spent or only hundreds, it is the unequal distribution of funds that many find objectionable.

It would also be a better application of funds to educate and promote prevention of the disease rather than curing it. The discovery of new strains and many "cures" becoming less effective over time for many patients has most pragmatic health professionals focusing on prevention rather than cure. In all of Africa, it is Uganda that has seen a decline in AIDS with the same or lesser government expenditure because it focuses on abstinence and monogomy first and condoms used in that construct.

You can't get around the fact that two practices -- injecting drugs and anal intercourse -- overwhelmingly to this day account for the vast majority of cases. Most of those now becoming infected result from knowingly engaging in risky behaviors. I feel society has less of a moral obligation to mitigate their consequences than it has to find cures for illnesses such as diabetes, sickle cell anemia and the like for which the afflicted have no means of personally avoiding the disease. It's kinda like smoking Toni. I have no problem with higher life insurance rates being charged to smokers. I don't think the taxpayer should have to pay for and fund research into curing respiratory illness related to that behavior. In this country, it is exactly the same for sexual promiscuity, a particular sex act, shooting up and risk of AIDS infection. So why then do we treat it so differently?

I don't know when sexual freedom meaning we all have to satisfy every sexual urge in whatever means we desire became so in vogue, but in civilized societies we legislate against the unbridled expression of other urges (e.g. vigilante killing is not allowed), so why reasonable expectations of control over one's sexual urges really shouldn't be that controversial.

Evie Happy