 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2004CDC/USAID DROPS ALL CLAIMS - The truth at last!
Like the CDC, the State Department’s Agency for International Development (USAID) has censored its web site to remove information on the effectiveness of condoms. As recently as February 2003, USAID’s web site included two detailed documents on condom effectiveness. The document The Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections stated: “Latex condoms are highly effective in prevention of HIV/AIDS” and “Public and government support for latex condoms is essential for disease prevention.”[5] The document USAID: HIV/AIDS and Condoms also stated that condoms are “highly effective for preventing HIV infection.” It called condom distribution a “cornerstone of USAID’s HIV prevention strategy.”[6] USAID then substantially altered its web site. The document The Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections is no longer available. The document USAID: HIV/AIDS and Condoms states only that “condom use can reduce the risk of HIV infection” and “[w]hile no barrier method is 100 percent effective, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of transmission of HIV and some other STIs.”[7] >Like the CDC, the State Departments Agency for International Development >(USAID) has censored its web site to remove information on the >effectiveness of condoms. That's because they are being influenced by right wing psychos who would rather look at ideology than science. They also have added crap in the CDC site that claims abortions cause breast cancer though there are no data to support that. George M. Carter No. It is because CONDOMS DON'T PROTECT. You will say ANYTHING to avoid the truth. Anything. > The document The Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing Sexually > Transmitted Infections stated: “Latex condoms are highly effective in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > percent effective, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce > the risk of transmission of HIV and some other STIs.”[7] And while the new webpage is different, I do not see the vast conspiracy that you seem to see. I do see they removed "highly effective," replacing it with "reduce the risk," yet I do not see how that shakes the foundations of public HIV education. "Highly effective" is an imprecise term which is why I suspect they dropped it. The new phraseology is correct - it is well-known that latex condoms reduce the risk of infection, though that actual risk is probably almost impossible to quantify. You've been on a condom trip for several weeks now. I am having a hard time trying to figure out where you're coming from. In some of your posts you state your belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that it is some harmless virus and that it must be an amazing coincidence how 99.99% of all AIDS patients carry the virus, and that the actual cause of their AIDS is something else, perhaps a chemical like hairspray. Then in other posts you denounce latex condoms as ineffective in blocking HIV tranmission, though I don't see why you care since the virus is harmless in your opinion. For decades latex has been used to block pathogenic bacteria and viruses, and extensive studies have shown it to block HIV as well. Naturally, latex can break and expose the wearer to pathogens, that risk has always been known and accounted for. I suppose that condoms and surgical gloves made of Kevlar might be more effective but also very impractical. First, a change from insisting that condoms are 99.99% protect to a position that they MAY be some protection is fairly radicle. The CDC has done an almost complete about face. You can say it is political but then you cannot attacks us for saying 'AIDS' is reactionary puritan politics. You can't have it both ways. Second, my position is that as 'AIDS' is an utter myth we have no more need of these nasty little toxic thing then we did in the sixties. Finally, 99% of people with HIV have 'AIDS' because that is how 'AIDS' is defined. It is like saying if you have a BMW you are a yuppie and proving it saying all yuppies have BMW's. Insanity! >First, a change from insisting that condoms are 99.99% protect to a >position that they MAY be some protection is fairly radicle. Huh? A percentage was provided? Yes, it HAS been a radical shift due to the pernicious influence of the extremist right wing christian fundamentalists who reject extramarital sex of any kind, support the invidious notion that condoms are no good despite evidence to the contrary, support "abstinence only" nonsense and suppress a woman's right to choose. They have had a deleterious impact on many government agencies. George M. Carter "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message... > First, a change from insisting that condoms are 99.99% protect to a > position that they MAY be some protection is fairly radicle. The CDC has [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Insanity! And you should know all about insanity. No, 99% of people with HIV do NOT have "AIDS" because AIDS refers ONLY to the terminal stage of the infection when the virus has overwhelmed the immune system so much that the victim begins suffering from the myriad opportunistic infections that are the actual cause of death. For up to 5 years after infection a person with HIV shows almost NO symptoms at all. With the introduction of the new drugs around 1995, the number of "AIDS" cases has plummeted, though the number of people infected with HIV continues to rise at an alarming rate. You are such a 'tard. I'd plonk you but I find your incoherent ramblings to be amusing. Mr. Jim Jones (a fitting name indeed), You overlook the fact that the current US conversion rate (AIDS to mortality) is under 3% PA. At that rate the vast majority will die of old age not so called 'AIDS'. You are an utter idiot who has such distorted notions that I do not feel inclined to waste the time putting you straight. A typical retarded 'AIDS' apologist full of myths and lies. A waste opf my time and computer disk storage. "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote... > Mr. Jim Jones (a fitting name indeed), > > You overlook the fact that the current US conversion rate (AIDS to > mortality) is under 3% PA. > > At that rate the vast majority will die of old age not so called 'AIDS'. Hmm? I assume by "conversion rate" you mean going from AIDS to being dead? Yes, I think I referred to that when I said the number of AIDS cases has plummeted since the introduction of the new drugs in 1995. A quick look at CDC2002 shows AIDS deaths as 50,000 in 1995, falling off a graphical cliff in 1996 and 1997, and stabilizing from 1998 on to about 15,000 in 2002 - a decline of about 70%. Looking at numbers of people "living with AIDS" (which seems to suggest that HIV+ is also included), I see a nearly linear increase all the way from 1985 to 2002, going from 2,500 in 1985 to 45,000 in 1995 to 80,000 in 2002. The number of "newly diagnosed AIDS cases" has dropped moderately, going from about 75,000 in 1995, going off a cliff from 1996-1998, and levelling off at about 45,000 in 2002. My analysis of increase in total AIDS cases and the newly diagnosed AIDS cases is that those infected for the longest time are showing symptoms of AIDS despite the drug cocktails - surely refuting your argument that more infectees will die of old age than AIDS. > You are an utter idiot who has such distorted notions that I do not feel > inclined to waste the time putting you straight. > > A typical retarded 'AIDS' apologist full of myths and lies. > > A waste opf my time and computer disk storage. I like how you describe me as an "AIDS apologist." Actually, I've been haunting this group on and off whining about how I think the facts are being distorted, but my rants tend to focus on how the number of HIV/AIDS cases, along with their demographic distribution, are being simultaneously increased and decreased depending on what the political agenda of the moment happens to be. If they're lobbying for an extra billion dollars of public money to be spent on research and treatment, suddenly it is an "epidemic" that threatens to wipe out the human race within a few years. If they're trying to explain how they spent that billion dollars, then they point out how the number of HIV/AIDS cases has "declined dramatically." They love to play games and exaggerate or downplay the incidence of HIV and AIDS among the various minority groups (women, gay men, blacks, etc.) - once again exaggerating the number to get more funding or downplaying the number in an attempt to "destigmatize" a particular minority group (e.g. "gays are no more likely than heterosexuals to have HIV"). But for all my ranting and raving, I don't think I've ever claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS; I've always admitted that it is a contagious disease though I also don't try to hide the fact that homosexual and bisexual men suffer a grossly disproportionate rate of infection (I calculated 10.7%, or 162x the heterosexual male infection rate for Americans). BTW, I do happen to be gay, and my willingness to accept the realities of the disease means that I am still uninfected. Years lost per 100,000 before age 75 as a result a non natural cause of death based on National Vital Statistics System. CDC table 31. 1999 figures. Heart disease: - 1,316.6 Milagnant endoplasms - 1,724.2 Unintentional injuries - 1, 047.9 Suicide - 343.0 AIDS - 187.6 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus02.pdf Suicide is twice the problem of AIDS in terms of loss of life potential. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.