Jump to content


Photo

Hiv


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#61 Adam Lewis

Adam Lewis

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 24 January 2007 - 08:16 AM

It's true that the use of nitrite inhalants (as well as other drugs) is associated with AIDS, but it seems kind of hasty to conclude that such drugs cause the disease. Another explanation - one which can explain the fact that AIDS is associated with the use of many different kinds of drugs - might be that the use of inhalants, as well as other drugs, leads to a relaxation of inhibitions, making the user much more likely to engage in risky S@xual activities. Alternatively, it wouldn't be unfair to assume that people who use street drugs will tend to be associated with socially marginalized groups (homeless people, drug addicts, and the promiscuous subsection of the h*mosexual population that you would probably refer to as the "G*y community"), and that members of these groups are more likely to engage in the sorts of activities that transmit the HIV virus.

The fact that North American AIDS cases are much more common in men than women can be explained by the fact that HIV was brought into the continent by a G*y man. By definition, G*y men tend to have s@x with other G*y men, and back in the 80s this s@x tended to be promiscuous and unprotected. By the time the disease started to leak significantly into the heterosexual and female population (women as a whole are less likely to engage in unprotected s@x with multiple partners than men are, and it's hard for the disease to be transmitted among h*mosexual females because the sort of s@x h*mosexual females have doesn't involve much fluid transfer) the alarm had been raised, and we had things like prevention campaigns ("don't have s@x with everyone you meet" / "if you're going to have s@x with everyone you meet, at least wear a C*ndom") and anti-HIV drugs, both of which slowed the spread of the virus significantly in countries that could afford them.

The only way you can get away with this drugs-cause-AIDS idea is by dismissing all the millions of AIDS victims who have never used street drugs (esp. in Africa) as not being 'real' cases of AIDS. This is classic no-true-Scotsman reasoning. It's true that AIDS has not been directly killing Africans, but doesn't it seem rather suspicious that so many African people have been getting normally trivial diseases for the past 20 years or so? It's especially odd that this sudden outbreak has largely spared the grandparents of Africa. Most infections have an easier time killing the elderly than the young.

Except, of course, infections that are spread by the sort of S@xual contact that African grandmothers no longer engage in...

#62 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 24 January 2007 - 08:53 AM

My understanding is that H*m*sexuals are by far the heaviest users of nitrite inhalants.  Do you have any information that these drugs are being used by the non-h*mosexual community?


I knew straight people who used to take it when I was at school (it was used a lot on the "rave" scene we had in the UK in the late 80's early 90's). It has 2 uses. The first is for the euphoric feeling it gives and the second is for its muscle-relaxing properties (anybody who doesn't know what I'm alluding to, use your imagination...). So, no, it's not exclusively a G*y drug.

There are a lot of cases of seroconversion to HIV through needlestick injuries, as in the case you referenced.  Barbara did not get AIDS... she contracted HIV.


Well obviously. AIDS is the result - you can't "catch" it. So we don't know what state Barbara's immune system is in do we? Okay - that being the case, we're going to have a hard time showing you an instance of full-blown AIDS being the direct result of a needlestick aren't we?

HIV is not transferred specifically to humans... it can be transferred to chimps... it just can't cause disease in animals.


Transferred how? What exactly are we talking about here?

You should be bothered by that.  It doesn't prove that HIV can't causes disease in humans, but it should cause one to reconsider.


Not really. Even if what you say above is true, the fact that we share so much DNA with chimps makes it quite likely that we would some diseases.

No other venereal disease has a male predominance.  What is it about HIV that causes it to preferentially causes disease in males.


I've answered that. Adam's answered it more eloquently than me.

I think you're relying more on the fact that the HIV/AIDS theory is mainstream.  If you look at the evidence, there is a lot of explaining to do.

View Post


Yes and no. 'If by relying on it being the mainstream theory' you mean generally 'relying on the mass of scientific papers, studies and the opinion of the S@xual health clinic in the hospital I work at', then yes I suppose I do.

#63 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 January 2007 - 09:42 AM

Well obviously.  AIDS is the result - you can't "catch" it.  So we don't know what state Barbara's immune system is in do we?  Okay - that being the case, we're going to have a hard time showing you an instance of full-blown AIDS being the direct result of a needlestick aren't we?


No, AIDS is not the obvious result. That's what we're debating. I'm not denying that HIV can be transmitted from one person to another. The fact that AIDS has never resulted from a needlestick injury is very significant. You can't produce AIDS in laboratory animals by transferring HIV, nor can you in humans by needlestick injuries. I don't care how many scientific papers you have... none of them prove that HIV causes AIDS. If you know of one, please let me know.

#64 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 24 January 2007 - 12:28 PM

No, AIDS is not the obvious result.  That's what we're debating.


Sorry, I meant 'obviously you can't catch AIDS but in my scenario it comes as a result of AIDS'. The obvious bit referred to the first part of the sentence.

I'm not denying that HIV can be transmitted from one person to another.  The fact that AIDS has never resulted from a needlestick injury is very significant.


I don't accept that "statistic". Not without some research.

You can't produce AIDS in laboratory animals by transferring HIV


No-one disputes that. The virus can't bind to the necessary proteins because they don't exist in mice. Thus the virus "dies".

I don't care how many scientific papers you have... none of them prove that HIV causes AIDS.  If you know of one, please let me know.

View Post


Prove? Or provide evidence for? The former is an unscientific request.

#65 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 January 2007 - 05:56 PM

Springer: I don't care how many scientific papers you have... none of them prove that HIV causes AIDS.  If you know of one, please let me know.

Greyhound:  Prove?  Or provide evidence for?  The former is an unscientific request.

View Post


You've got it backwards. The scientific method seeks proof. Any false hypothesis has evidence in its favor.

#66 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 25 January 2007 - 02:36 AM

You've got it backwards.  The scientific method seeks proof.  Any false hypothesis has evidence in its favor.

View Post


Good grief no! We're going to have a hard time debating science if you think that. Here's a rather succint description of science' method: Science

...of particular import: "When an old theory cannot explain new observations it will be (eventually) replaced by a new theory. This does not mean that the old ones are ``wrong'' or ``untrue'', it only means that the old theory had a limited applicability and could not explain all current data. The only certain thing about currently accepted theories is that they explain all available data, which, if course, does not imply that they will explains all future experiments!"

...showing both how we handle old theories and why we NEVER call it proof (proof is for mathematicians).

#67 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 January 2007 - 03:02 AM

Good grief no!  We're going to have a hard time debating science if you think that.  Here's a rather succint description of science' method: Science

...of particular import: "When an old theory cannot explain new observations it will be (eventually) replaced by a new theory. This does not mean that the old ones are ``wrong'' or ``untrue'', it only means that the old theory had a limited applicability and could not explain all current data. The only certain thing about currently accepted theories is that they explain all available data, which, if course, does not imply that they will explains all future experiments!"

...showing both how we handle old theories and why we NEVER call it proof (proof is for mathematicians).

View Post


Must be the reason evolution no longer deals with the odds of how a certain thing can happen. Odds is math, math requires proof because mathematicians demand it. Now I understand why evolutionist avoid odds like the plague.

#68 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 25 January 2007 - 03:06 AM

Must be the reason evolution no longer deals with the odds of how a certain thing can happen. Odds is math, math requires proof because mathematicians demand it. Now I understand why evolutionist avoid odds like the plague.

View Post


No longer deals with? What sort of odds are you alluding to?

Maths doesn't require proof, it produces proof.

#69 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 January 2007 - 03:47 AM

No longer deals with?  What sort of odds are you alluding to?

Maths doesn't require proof, it produces proof.

View Post


The ones evolutionists always ignore. But I can play dumb on this as well. I guess if you can't figure it out, you most not be a seasoned creation debater. For it comes up if your in it long enough.

I give you one: What are the odds that the eye formed from a freckle?

#70 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 25 January 2007 - 03:59 AM

The ones evolutionists always ignore. But I can play dumb on this as well. I guess if you can't figure it out, you most not be a seasoned creation debater. For it comes up if your in it long enough.


It was a civil and honest question. I was wondering if you were pointing to Hoyle's likelihood of a cell forming (in which case he was an astronomer) or were you referring to examples such as the one you just gave?

I give you one: What are the odds that the eye formed from a freckle?

View Post


1:1 given the way your question is phrased. If you asked 'given a patch of light sensitive skin, what are the odds of an eye forming?' I'd have to ask how *anyone* would go about answering that sensibly?

#71 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 January 2007 - 05:04 AM

It was a civil and honest question.  I was wondering if you were pointing to Hoyle's likelihood of a cell forming (in which case he was an astronomer) or were you referring to examples such as the one you just gave?
1:1 given the way your question is phrased.  If you asked 'given a patch of light sensitive skin, what are the odds of an eye forming?' I'd have to ask how *anyone* would go about answering that sensibly?

View Post


1 to 1 eh? Care to show the math for that? The math that says all the evidence equals 1 to 1. Just like you have claimed.

#72 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 25 January 2007 - 05:28 AM

1 to 1 eh? Care to show the math for that? The math that says all the evidence equals 1 to 1. Just like you have claimed.

View Post


Certainly...though it's not maths.

Eyes exist, therefore the probability of eyes coming to exist = 1

If you're asking for the probabilities of the necessary changes occuring to a single patch of light sensitive skin, I'd have to say that would be some pretty complex maths. Ceratinly not something evolutionists would spend time on as the answer would be nonsensiscal.

#73 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 17 February 2007 - 08:11 PM

Springer - are you saying that HIV will not lead to AIDS? My cousin contracted HIV and lived with it for over 10 years. Eventually it turned into full blown aids and then he died. He didn't use drugs.

#74 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 February 2007 - 11:29 AM

Springer - are you saying that HIV will not lead to AIDS?  My cousin contracted HIV and lived with it for over 10 years.  Eventually it turned into full blown aids and then he died.  He didn't use drugs.

View Post


A couple of questions:
Was your cousin a h*mosexual?
Did he use AZT?

#75 richardT

richardT

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto, Ontario

Posted 16 March 2007 - 06:19 PM

I've read the whole thread and I'll just say that I'm confused about this issue. I have some questions for stringer, though.

Can AIDs be produced in heterosexual anal s@x?

The OP argued that HIV was 'non existant', yet you are constantly talking about HIV in your posts, why is that?

Is that specific h*mosexual and AZT the only drugs that seems to cause AIDs, or do other illicit drugs as well?

#76 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 18 March 2007 - 08:50 AM

I've read the whole thread and I'll just say that I'm confused about this issue. I have some questions for stringer, though.

Can AIDs be produced in heterosexual anal s@x?

The OP argued that HIV was 'non existant', yet you are constantly talking about HIV in your posts, why is that?

Is that specific h*mosexual and AZT the only drugs that seems to cause AIDs, or do other illicit drugs as well?

View Post


No, you wont get aids from having hetrosexual anal s@x. Thats been going on for eons without causing trouble.

#77 richardT

richardT

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto, Ontario

Posted 18 March 2007 - 10:13 AM

No, you wont get aids from having hetrosexual anal s@x.  Thats been going on for eons without causing trouble.

View Post


But he's arguing that h*mosexual anal s@x would.

#78 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 18 March 2007 - 11:36 AM

But he's arguing that h*mosexual anal s@x would.

View Post


If you want a definitive medical answer on the subject, consult your physician. If you want to know about the spiritual implications of it, consult your priest.

#79 richardT

richardT

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto, Ontario

Posted 29 April 2007 - 10:34 AM

If you want a definitive medical answer on the subject, consult your physician.  If you want to know about the spiritual implications of it, consult your priest.

View Post


Springer is a Medical Doctor.

#80 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 22 June 2007 - 06:40 AM

As I've before stated, AIDS is a non-infectious disease caused by drug use. The proposal that anal s@x has something to do with its etiology should be dismissed because 10% of heterosexual couples practice anal s@x... and they are not getting AIDS. The one common denominator in all AIDS cases is drug use. If AIDS is infectious, it should be rampant in teenagers and female prostitutes, and it is virtually absent in those two groups.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users