Where did AIDS come from?

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: pinion9
How did we get on the topic of where AIDS came from when this thread was really about Aimster not knowing that "Gay" isn't a race?

If you took a literature course in college maybe you would realize how to piece together pieces of information to form one solid statement.

Maybe if you had a sense of humor you would appreciate sarcasm.

Aimster, you are the one that stated your coworkers are racist because they say stuff like AIDs [sic] comes from gays.

I also said they use the N word.

Which would pretty sum up the racist part.

Stop trying to be a lawyer. This isn't law school. P&N is that way ->

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
It came from monkeys, they have HIV, but it doesn't effect them, it got into humans somehow, sodomy or whatever noone knows.
It would've spread even without gays.

If those damn dirty apes were taught how to use condoms in the first place and weren't so promiscuous...

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
It came from monkeys, they have HIV, but it doesn't effect them, it got into humans somehow, sodomy or whatever noone knows.
It would've spread even without gays.

funny.. cuz it did spread without the gays lol
homosexuals weren't exactly nearly as common as it is today
it was just africa and their crazy breeding and low-health and lots of people type of thing.. something like that
spread like wildfire (although they actually suspect it was around for a long time before the AIDS boom in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.)

lol, AIDS boom.. sounds like a stock market

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I also said they use the N word.

Which would pretty sum up the racist part.

Stop trying to be a lawyer. This isn't law school. P&N is that way ->

Oh, c'mon, labeling a couple of people as "nincompoops" isn't racist.

Or is that NOT the right N-Word?

 

[aidanjm]

"In February 1999 a group of researchers from the University of Alabama1 announced that they had found a type of SIVcpz that was almost identical to HIV-1. This particular strain was identified in a frozen sample taken from a sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes, which were once common in west-central Africa.

The researchers (lead by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama) made the discovery during the course of a 10-year long study into the origins of the virus. They claimed that this sample proved that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus had at some point crossed species from chimps to humans."

Interesting article on origin of HIV

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pinion9

No, you don't need tears. However, AIDS can enter the body much easier that way.

sure, but its actually much more common for a man to pass it to a women (or a women to a man) through vaginal intercourse than two gay men doing it anal style. in all practicality, you share the exact same chance of contracting it no matter your sex style preference.

so remember children, wrap it before you tap it

Funny, it may be "theoretically" more common, but these statistics indicate that 185,326 AIDS cases were from Homosexual (male-to-male) contact, whereas only 35,671 came from heterosexual contact. And the CDC seems to have similar percentages.

Hmm..

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pinion9

No, you don't need tears. However, AIDS can enter the body much easier that way.

sure, but its actually much more common for a man to pass it to a women (or a women to a man) through vaginal intercourse than two gay men doing it anal style. in all practicality, you share the exact same chance of contracting it no matter your sex style preference.

so remember children, wrap it before you tap it

Funny, it may be "theoretically" more common, but these statistics indicate that 185,326 AIDS cases were from Homosexual contact, whereas onlu 35,671 came from heterosexual contact. And the CDC seems to have similar percentages.

Hmm..

Its pretty much common sense, you don't need statistics to really make your case. I remember me and a friend argued about this at one point, and I did some analysis and downright proved - from multiple angles - why gay men spread disease (not just AIDS) more so then any other group of people. This isn't speaking of homosexuals in general, simply gay men. I remember one of the things I found was that the proliferation of AIDS was more apparent in San Francisco then in any other part of the US in the last 10 years. That pretty much wraps it up.

 

[ndee]

Boah, so many fvcking IDIOTS in this thread, unbelievable. ATOT went downhill a long long time ago.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pinion9

No, you don't need tears. However, AIDS can enter the body much easier that way.

sure, but its actually much more common for a man to pass it to a women (or a women to a man) through vaginal intercourse than two gay men doing it anal style. in all practicality, you share the exact same chance of contracting it no matter your sex style preference.

so remember children, wrap it before you tap it

Funny, it may be "theoretically" more common, but these statistics indicate that 185,326 AIDS cases were from Homosexual (male-to-male) contact, whereas only 35,671 came from heterosexual contact. And the CDC seems to have similar percentages.

Hmm..

he's probably talking about Africa. There are more than 40 million people with the virus on that continent. It's predominently spread via heterosexual sex in Africa, and there are more women than men infected over there, which is interesting.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pinion9

No, you don't need tears. However, AIDS can enter the body much easier that way.

sure, but its actually much more common for a man to pass it to a women (or a women to a man) through vaginal intercourse than two gay men doing it anal style. in all practicality, you share the exact same chance of contracting it no matter your sex style preference.

so remember children, wrap it before you tap it

Funny, it may be "theoretically" more common, but these statistics indicate that 185,326 AIDS cases were from Homosexual contact, whereas onlu 35,671 came from heterosexual contact. And the CDC seems to have similar percentages.

Hmm..

Its pretty much common sense, you don't need statistics to really make your case.

Well, apparently you *do* need statistics, as destrekor claimed the exact opposite to be true.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
he's probably talking about Africa. There are more than 40 million people with the virus on that continent. It's predominently spread via heterosexual sex in Africa, and there are more women than men infected over there, which is interesting.

I read an article quite some time ago about a trend with prostitutes in Africa. Specifically, they would use something like bleach on their genitals to dry them out and guys would do it essentially bone dry, which resulted in a lot of ripping (no lube.) This was "the thing" for some time, don't know if it is still popular...

 

[Rill22]

AIDS was developed and instigated by the government to be used as a means of population control.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pinion9

No, you don't need tears. However, AIDS can enter the body much easier that way.

sure, but its actually much more common for a man to pass it to a women (or a women to a man) through vaginal intercourse than two gay men doing it anal style. in all practicality, you share the exact same chance of contracting it no matter your sex style preference.

so remember children, wrap it before you tap it

Funny, it may be "theoretically" more common, but these statistics indicate that 185,326 AIDS cases were from Homosexual contact, whereas onlu 35,671 came from heterosexual contact. And the CDC seems to have similar percentages.

Hmm..

Its pretty much common sense, you don't need statistics to really make your case. I remember me and a friend argued about this at one point, and I did some analysis and downright proved - from multiple angles - why gay men spread disease (not just AIDS) more so then any other group of people. This isn't speaking of homosexuals in general, simply gay men. I remember one of the things I found was that the proliferation of AIDS was more apparent in San Francisco then in any other part of the US in the last 10 years. That pretty much wraps it up.

well, not really. the fact that AIDS got a strangle hold in the gay community in the West (USA, Europe) was just a matter of bad luck. (A very promiscuous flight attendant picked the virus up in Africa, came back to the USA, and screwed his way through hundreds of gay men, passing on the virus as he went.) Keep in mind that in Africa, where there are over 40 million people infected, the HIV virus is a heterosexual phenomenon.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ndee
Boah, so many fvcking IDIOTS in this thread, unbelievable. ATOT went downhill a long long time ago.

And yet, this is your only post in this thread. Do you have something to add or correct?

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pinion9

No, you don't need tears. However, AIDS can enter the body much easier that way.

sure, but its actually much more common for a man to pass it to a women (or a women to a man) through vaginal intercourse than two gay men doing it anal style. in all practicality, you share the exact same chance of contracting it no matter your sex style preference.

so remember children, wrap it before you tap it

Funny, it may be "theoretically" more common, but these statistics indicate that 185,326 AIDS cases were from Homosexual contact, whereas onlu 35,671 came from heterosexual contact. And the CDC seems to have similar percentages.

Hmm..

Its pretty much common sense, you don't need statistics to really make your case. I remember me and a friend argued about this at one point, and I did some analysis and downright proved - from multiple angles - why gay men spread disease (not just AIDS) more so then any other group of people. This isn't speaking of homosexuals in general, simply gay men. I remember one of the things I found was that the proliferation of AIDS was more apparent in San Francisco then in any other part of the US in the last 10 years. That pretty much wraps it up.

well, not really. the fact that AIDS got a strangle hold in the gay community in the West (USA, Europe) was just a matter of bad luck. (A very promiscuous flight attendant picked the virus up in Africa, came back to the USA, and screwed his way through hundreds of gay men, passing on the virus as he went.) Keep in mind that in Africa, where there are over 40 million people infected, the HIV virus is a heterosexual phenomenon.

I understand what you mean - but I did my analysis based solely on how it spread in the US. Not in the world. What I found was pretty conclusive, and I even got my friend who I referenced to change his stance on it.

Besides, I have yet to meet a gay guy who isn't that promiscuous. I'm sorry, I don't mean to make a blanket statement - and I don't want to offend anybody. But from personal experience, every gay guy I've known was down right promiscuous.

EDIT: I want to add, it may be because of my age - I'm younger and the gay guys I know are younger. So that may have something to do with it.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
well, not really. the fact that AIDS got a strangle hold in the gay community in the West (USA, Europe) was just a matter of bad luck. (A very promiscuous flight attendant picked the virus up in Africa, came back to the USA, and screwed his way through hundreds of gay men, passing on the virus as he went.) Keep in mind that in Africa, where there are over 40 million people infected, the HIV virus is a heterosexual phenomenon.

It is because there are only 2 gay men in all of Africa. They both have it.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pinion9

No, you don't need tears. However, AIDS can enter the body much easier that way.

sure, but its actually much more common for a man to pass it to a women (or a women to a man) through vaginal intercourse than two gay men doing it anal style. in all practicality, you share the exact same chance of contracting it no matter your sex style preference.

so remember children, wrap it before you tap it

Funny, it may be "theoretically" more common, but these statistics indicate that 185,326 AIDS cases were from Homosexual (male-to-male) contact, whereas only 35,671 came from heterosexual contact. And the CDC seems to have similar percentages.

Hmm..

he's probably talking about Africa. There are more than 40 million people with the virus on that continent. It's predominently spread via heterosexual sex in Africa, and there are more women than men infected over there, which is interesting.

Yeah, guess why? They think if they fvck with a Virgin, they're cured.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
But from personal experience, every gay guy I've known was down right promiscuous.

That is because "in-the-butt" doesn't count, as was established earlier in the thread. Maybe we should have an "Anal Awareness" month where we get the word out that Anal sex DOES count.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: ndee
Boah, so many fvcking IDIOTS in this thread, unbelievable. ATOT went downhill a long long time ago.

And yet, this is your only post in this thread. Do you have something to add or correct?

Sometimes, I could just puke around about the people here. AIDS came from the gays? etc. and all those other "facts"

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: ndee
Yeah, guess why? They think if they fvck with a Virgin, they're cured.

That is why it is an epidemic in San Francisco. The nearest virgins are about 700 miles away.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Rill22
AIDS was developed and instigated by the government to be used as a means of population control.

the earliest death from HIV was 1959. Some scientists have predicted the earliest occurence of HIV in humans (based on mathematical modelling of the evolution of the virus) and they say the earliest occurrence of the virus in humans would have been in the 1940s. At that time, we didn't have the gene manipulation technology to perform the genetic engineering required to manufacture a virus. So how could the virus be man made? Seems unlikely. We didn't even have gene manipulation technology in 1959 when the first person died from complications of HIV/ AIDs. Also, seeing as strains of SIV that are almost identical to HIV have been found in certain monkeys, it seems a bit more likely that the virus jumped species (from monkey to man) at some point.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Its pretty much common sense, you don't need statistics to really make your case. I remember me and a friend argued about this at one point, and I did some analysis and downright proved - from multiple angles - why gay men spread disease (not just AIDS) more so then any other group of people. This isn't speaking of homosexuals in general, simply gay men. I remember one of the things I found was that the proliferation of AIDS was more apparent in San Francisco then in any other part of the US in the last 10 years. That pretty much wraps it up.

well, not really. the fact that AIDS got a strangle hold in the gay community in the West (USA, Europe) was just a matter of bad luck. (A very promiscuous flight attendant picked the virus up in Africa, came back to the USA, and screwed his way through hundreds of gay men, passing on the virus as he went.) Keep in mind that in Africa, where there are over 40 million people infected, the HIV virus is a heterosexual phenomenon.

No, you cannot simply gloss over facts. Just like the fact that there are more African Americans with AIDS in the US than Caucasiona. That's *total,* not per capita, which means significantly larger percentages of homosexuals and African American have AIDS than do heterosexuals and Caucasions.

You can't just say "Ah, that's just due to bad luck." You have to address the reasons for such things in order to correct them, not wave them away with a flick of the hand. Sorry if feelings get hurt along the way, but denial will get us nowhere.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: ndee
Yeah, guess why? They think if they fvck with a Virgin, they're cured.

That is why it is an epidemic in San Francisco. The nearest virgins are about 700 miles away.

I'm talking about AFRICA. The people there aren't as educated. Actually, neither are you.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: ndee
Sometimes, I could just puke around about the people here. AIDS came from the gays? etc. and all those other "facts"

No such thing as bad publicity. At least "the gays" have something to show for their hardships. "We didn't send a man to the moon, but have you heard of AIDS? Yup, that was us." Think of it as a trophy.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: destrekor
lmao

you dont need tears
thus why a man can get it from a women (up the urethra), and a woman can get it during regular intercourse too (walls of vagina/uterus)....

and yea, they suspect it came from a monkey.

The odds of a man getting HIV from a woman via vaginal intercourse are pretty low.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

According to the French ministry for health, the probability of transmission per act varies from 0.03% to 0.07% for the case of receptive vaginal sex, from 0.02 to 0.05% in the case of insertive vaginal sex, from 0.01% to 0.185% in the case of insertive anal sex, and 0.5% to 3% in the case of receptive anal sex