More people living with HIV then ever before

[Dari]

I'm also quite comfortable defending these people's right to live. Care to categorize me as well?

No one is saying they should be put to death. But they should form their own community where they cannot spread the disease further. And, yes, I will put you in the same category as zsdersw if you support those with the disease the right to infect others at will.

 

[zsdersw]

Hasn't that happened with other diseases throughout history?

Other diseases != HIV. HIV is usually asymptomatic for a relatively long time after being infected

History != the present or future.

 

[Texashiker]

What I'm comfortable with is people choosing to live their lives as they see fit, whether they have HIV or not.

What I'm not comfortable with is letting people like you, who ignorantly believe that someone with HIV is analogous to and as dangerous to the general public as Typhoid Mary, spout your ignorance unchallenged.

The rub is when people live their life as they see fit, conflicts with the health of the public.

I would hope that most people with HIV take precautions not to spread the disease. But some people do not care and will spread the disease.

Take John Holmes for example, after he was diagnosed with HIV, he did not tell anyone of his condition and still preformed in movies.

Since John wanted to "live his life as he saw fit", then it was ok for him to infect others?

 

[zsdersw]

No one is saying they should be put to death.

No, but you did say they should be put on an island... as in forcibly relocated. That implies a level of government/police action that is both unconstitutional and similar to that required to put someone to death.

But they should form their own community where they cannot spread the disease further. And, yes, I will put you in the same category as zsdersw if you support those with the disease the right to infect others at will.

Show me where anyone on here said they support that.

As for "forming their own community", there are already plenty. Obviously you've never heard of sero-sorting... and the many websites where people with HIV/AIDS can meet and socialize.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No one is saying they should be put to death. But they should form their own community where they cannot spread the disease further. And, yes, I will put you in the same category as zsdersw if you support those with the disease the right to infect others at will.

Where did zsdersw say anything about their right to willfully infect others? It's about letting people live their lives. There's laws against knowingly infecting others. That doesn't mean every last person with HIV/AIDS actively seeks to do so.

 

[zsdersw]

The rub is when people live their life as they see fit, conflicts with the health of the public.

I would hope that most people with HIV take precautions not to spread the disease. But some people do not care and will spread the disease.

Take John Holmes for example, after he was diagnosed with HIV, he did not tell anyone of his condition and still preformed in movies.

Since John wanted to "live his life as he saw fit", then it was ok for him to infect others?

You're being as stupid as Dari. Obviously it's not OK to deliberately infect others or knowingly put others at risk. If you actually knew anything about HIV/AIDS you'd know that yes.. most people with HIV do take precautions.

"Live their life as they see fit" was in response to Dari's idiocy about moving people to an island and that it's not OK for people to live with HIV/AIDS.

 

[Texashiker]

If you actually knew anything about HIV/AIDS

A friend of mine died due to complications of HIV. I saw the way he deteriorated from the early 1990s, all the way to his death in 2004. My wife and I saw him 4 days before he died.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/obits_3758630/jerome.html

I wish you would keep your petty personal insults to yourself.

 

[Dari]

No, but you did say they should be put on an island... as in forcibly relocated. That implies a level of government/police action that is both unconstitutional and similar to that required to put someone to death.



Show me where anyone on here said they support that.

As for "forming their own community", there are already plenty. Obviously you've never heard of sero-sorting... and the many websites where people with HIV/AIDS can meet and socialize.

Where did zsdersw say anything about their right to willfully infect others? It's about letting people live their lives. There's laws against knowingly infecting others. That doesn't mean every last person with HIV/AIDS actively seeks to do so.

By allowing those with the disease free will and letting them do as they please, you are inviting them to kill millions of people with their disease. Super AIDS came directly from the gay community and now it is wreaking havoc on the heterosexual community.

 

[zsdersw]

A friend of mine died due to complications of HIV. I saw the way he deteriorated from the early 1990s, all the way to his death in 2004. My wife and I saw him 3 days before he died.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/obits_3758630/jerome.html

I wish you would keep your petty personal insults to yourself.

And I wish you would keep your ignorance about HIV to yourself, but here we are. I'm sorry for the loss of your friend, but the way you've been talking about HIV in this thread tells me you actually know very little about it.

 

[Macamus Prime]

If the CDC freaks out over antibiotic resistant tuberculosis, why is HIV treated differently?

Because HIV does not spread like TB.

What exactly do you want done to people with a disease, that can not be spread, unless you have unprotected sex and share a hyperdermic needle with them?

Would you have sex with someone who has TB? And then shoot up with them? No. Why would you fear someone who has something you can not get, unless you fuck them with out a condom or jam their dirty needle into your arm?

Holy fucking shit,...

The cure for AIDS and HIV is education. Educate the people to use protection, or frankly, not fuck or shoot up at all.

To expect the gubnament to do something points out to 2 items here:
1) you are OK with the gubnament "handling" the HIV infected, but you don't want the gubnament to touch your guns, house or concrete bunker with cans and shotgun ammo,... pretty fucking selective as to how and when the governement "needs" to get involved.
2) you are so brain washed by your own fear, you can't even stop to function like a normal intelligent human being to understand what HIV/AIDs really is.

Think about it. You don't understand HIV/AIDs - which leads to; "the government should do something".

Now, what if I said "Guns kill people! The goverment needs to stop gun sales!!" - you would flip the fuck out and tell me I know jack-shit about gun control and ownership and I need to shut up.

I would hope that most people with HIV take precautions not to spread the disease. But some people do not care and will spread the disease.

The care comes from those who are not infected; they protect themselves (like a gun owner is careful) from getting the fucking disease in the 1st place.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

By allowing those with the disease free will and letting them do as they please, you are inviting them to kill millions of people with their disease. Super AIDS came directly from the gay community and now it is wreaking havoc on the heterosexual community.

I'm a gun owner. I have the capacity to kill at will. Even accidentally. Happens all the time. Where's my island?

An equally stupid and weak argument.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm sorry for the loss of your friend, but the way you've been talking about HIV in this thread tells me you actually know very little about it.

HIV, along with other plagues in human history is one of my favorite topics. But unlike other plagues, modern medicine and modern forms of transportation seem to be extending this outbreak.

As more and more people live with the infection, this means we have more people that can spread the infection.

Which one would be better, to let the disease run its course, or to extend the lives of those infected?

With Allen, he was gay and caught the infection through sex. From the time he was diagnosed to the time he died, was almost exactly 20 years. Allens lover died years before he did.

 

[Dari]

I'm a gun owner. I have the capacity to kill at will. Even accidentally. Happens all the time. Where's my island?

An equally stupid and weak argument.

Do you consider a gun a disease, idiot? Is it something you sought? Do you consider HIV/AIDS/ Super AIDS a weapon worth having?

 

[zsdersw]

By allowing those with the disease free will and letting them do as they please, you are inviting them to kill millions of people with their disease.

The FAIL is strong in you. Knowingly putting others at risk of HIV/AIDS infection by hiding or denying you have HIV when asked is already a crime. Having sex or sharing needles with someone who has HIV/AIDS even after they told you they're HIV+ is a choice someone makes.. and must be responsible for themselves.

Super AIDS came directly from the gay community and now it is wreaking havoc on the heterosexual community.

"Super AIDS" is a myth. http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20050725/fears-of-aids-superbug-eased

Heterosexual males, usually in relationships with women, who have sex with gay men are acting on the down low... and are entirely responsible for their own choices.

 

[Macamus Prime]

I wish you would keep your petty personal insults to yourself.

And you should really think about expecting the government to do something about a disease that is spread through some very specific actions and conditions. TB and HIV are not the same, therefore the different treatment.

Furthermore, I find it sickening that you expect the government to do something about a disease that is easily avoidable, just as it is to NOT shooting yourself in the foot.

But, you go ape shit when someone tries to take or control the gun in your hand, in the interests of safety. However, you expect the government to control the HIV infected person, in the interests of safety.

You are an HIV-phobe.

Don't worry though, here is some advice, until the gubnament gets off it's ass to do something:
- when you have sex with an HIV/AIDs infected person, just wear a condom (or, get to know the man/woman before you screw around with them).
- when you shoot up drugs with someone, bring your own needles - or, just don't do drugs that require a needle.

Say, all the men and women you've had unprotected sex with and used their needles - what part of America are they in? Maybe you should just hang out with them and not bother with the rest the country?

 

[Texashiker]

"Super AIDS" is a myth. http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20050725/fears-of-aids-superbug-eased

I will take your article that was posted in 2005, and raise you an article posted in 2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34624393/ns/health-aids/t/south-africa-drug-resistant-hiv-emerging/

And you should really think about expecting the government to do something about a disease that is spread through some very specific actions and conditions. TB and HIV are not the same, therefore the different treatment.
<snip> Maybe you should just hang out with them and not bother with the rest the country?

Lets get past the government debate, and move onto if modern drugs are extending the HIV outbreak.

Plagues come and go, and its been that way throughout human history.

If HIV were left to run its course, would it burn itself out?

Like you said Macamus Prime, HIV is difficult to catch. If HIV were left to kill the people in the at-risk groups, what would happen?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Do you consider a gun a disease, idiot? Is it something you sought? Do you consider HIV/AIDS/ Super AIDS a weapon worth having?

Do you think HIV infected people sought to be infected? Funny you see the idiocy of the one premise but not the other.

Oh and tip. The name calling just makes you sound pathetically desperate.

 

[Dari]

The FAIL is strong in you. Knowingly putting others at risk of HIV/AIDS infection by hiding or denying you have HIV when asked is already a crime. Having sex or sharing needles with someone who has HIV/AIDS even after they told you they're HIV+ is a choice someone makes.. and must be responsible for themselves.



"Super AIDS" is a myth. http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20050725/fears-of-aids-superbug-eased

Heterosexual males, usually in relationships with women, who have sex with gay men are acting on the down low... and are entirely responsible for their own choices.

That article is ancient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_AIDS

It's a crime that is difficult to prove in a court of law. It's far easier to segregate them and keep society clean.

 

[zsdersw]

HIV, along with other plagues in human history is one of my favorite topics.

It may be your favorite, but that doesn't mean you know a lot about it.

But unlike other plagues, modern medicine and modern forms of transportation seem to be extending this outbreak.

As more and more people live with the infection, this means we have more people that can spread the infection.

Which one would be better, to let the disease run its course, or to extend the lives of those infected?

With Allen, he was gay and caught the infection through sex. From the time he was diagnosed to the time he died, was almost exactly 20 years. Allens lover died years before he did.

Modern medicine and modern forms of transportation are extending all "outbreaks". That's the point. Diseases mutate, environments change, and all the time we work to find ways to eliminate disease. Your argument as presented is more an indictment of modern medicine in general than of HIV treatment in particular.

We learn a great deal in developing medicines for various diseases, and everything we learn makes possible the discoveries necessary to thwart future diseases. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks HIV treatment and research is a waste of resources just doesn't get the big picture... and knows woefully little about medicine.

 

[zsdersw]

That article is ancient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_AIDS

Nothing in that Wikipedia article is any newer.

It's a crime that is difficult to prove in a court of law. It's far easier to segregate them and keep society clean.

It's not at all easier to do that... nor is it legal or constitutional.

 

[Dari]

Do you think HIV infected people sought to be infected? Funny you see the idiocy of the one premise but not the other.

Oh and tip. The name calling just makes you sound pathetically desperate.

Don't be so sensitive, idiot. YOu called my argument 'stupid'. The idiocy I saw was your analogy.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Don't be so sensitive, idiot. YOu called my argument 'stupid'. The idiocy I saw was your analogy.

Any chane you're a member of WBC?

 

[Dari]

Nothing in that Wikipedia article is any newer.



It's not at all easier to do that... nor is it legal or constitutional.

Your article is from 2005. The link I provided talks about studies in 2006 and later.

Some reports have used the term "super AIDS" regarding multidrug resistant strains of HIV-1 (MDR HIV-1) found in New York City in 2005.[3][4][5] The initial case was described by New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden as holding "the potential for a very serious public health problem", and by Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the National Center for HIV, as "quite alarming", though the strain retained vulnerability to enfuvirtide.[6] During a subsequent thirteen-month study in New York City, laboratories genotyping HIV to predict drug resistance were asked to report all genotypes resistant to more than three nucleoside/nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors, or any non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, or more than three protease inhibitors. The resulting data, from 189 persons, indicated a low prevalence of multidrug resistance in newly infected persons, but led to funding for further studies. In 2006, provisional data indicated that 15% of new infections were resistant to one antiretroviral drug, and 3.2% to two such drugs. As a result the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services changed its guidelines to recommend testing for drug resistance before beginning antiretroviral treatment in new patients.[7]

 

[Dari]

Any chane you're a member of WBC?

Any chance you have Super AIDS?

 

[zsdersw]

I will take your article that was posted in 2005, and raise you an article posted in 2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34624393/ns/health-aids/t/south-africa-drug-resistant-hiv-emerging/

When the drugs available for use in Africa are relatively ancient, drug resistance is academic.