 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2004NEVER MORE TRUE
Author Michael Fumento, in his book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, offers substantial evidence that white, middle-class, non IV drugabuser heterosexuals are in less danger of contracting AIDS thru non-anal, sexual intercourse than they are of dying from shark attacks, being hit by lightning, or accidentally drowning in the bathtub. The book is very well referenced and documented. The book was reviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Assn as "the best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess their personal risk." "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message > Author Michael Fumento, in his book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, offers > substantial evidence that white, middle-class, non IV drugabuser > heterosexuals are in less danger of contracting AIDS thru non-anal, sexual > intercourse than they are of dying from shark attacks, being hit by > lightning, or accidentally drowning in the bathtub. I hope Carter is reading this Me too. >"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message >> Author Michael Fumento, in his book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, offers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >I hope Carter is reading this LOL. Fumento? Wrote that book years and years ago. And it was crap then! Hey, moron Death bigot! get a clue--most of HIV transmission is among heterosexuals. Men and women. HIV doesn't give a rat's a.s about your silly bigotry or Fumento's ancient delirium. Sex is good. Sex is fun. Protecting each other from getting or giving a disease is just good sense. George M. Carter "The book was reviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Assn as "the best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess their personal risk." Who to believe? Fanatic GM Carter or the American Medical Association? What a hard choice. P.S. Carter. Only 11% of American so called 'AIDS' cases are heterosexual non drugs users. ALL ARE POOR. >"The book was reviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Assn as "the >best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess >their personal risk." Wow. You'll make up any crap, won't you. >Who to believe? Fanatic GM Carter or the American Medical Association? >What a hard choice. For you, not. Frankly, I don't believe this outre claim. >P.S. Carter. Only 11% of American so called 'AIDS' cases are heterosexual >non drugs users. ALL ARE POOR. I see. That means HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Even if this is true, so what? But the way you pull numbers out of a hat, I simply don't believe you. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > LOL. Fumento? Wrote that book years and years ago. Back when only faggots had aids? > And it was crap > then! Hey, moron Death bigot! get a clue--most of HIV transmission is > among heterosexuals. Most everything is among heterosexuals, being they are 98% of the world population. The really funny part is faggots have 50% of aids cases. >Men and women. HIV doesn't give a rat's a.s > about your silly bigotry or Fumento's ancient delirium. That's true, aids doesn't give a rats a.s about me. I'm straight, white and don't do drugs. > Sex is good. Sex is fun. Protecting each other from getting or giving > a disease is just good sense. I'd say you were a little late worring about that. snip >> LOL. Fumento? Wrote that book years and years ago. > >Back when only faggots had aids? Gosh--and you claimed you weren't a bigot!! Well, lo and behold. You have come out. Hallelujah. So why the hell do you care? The reality is that HIV is a sexually transmitted disease. In 1990, in the US and Europe, much of HIV disease was among intravenous drug users, people with hemophilia and gay men. But it certainly WAS happening among heterosexuals. And now hets represent a huge proportion, globally. Of course, a sad little troll like you will just giggle and think you're clever and smugly self-satisfied in your hate. But you're the one that has to live with it, eating your soul and wasting your life. >> And it was crap >> then! Hey, moron Death bigot! get a clue--most of HIV transmission is >> among heterosexuals. > >Most everything is among heterosexuals, being they are 98% of the world >population. I think you're going down the path of saying that majority rule permits oppression or something? Despite the fact that protecting minority views and peoples is part of the foundation of the United States?? Maybe you'd prefer living in Russia!! lol.... But the fact is, caucasians ARE the minority on the planet. >The really funny part is faggots have 50% of aids cases. Here in the US, I think the overall number is about 40% are gay men. Not lesbians. Maybe lesbians aren't "faggots" in your charming worldview. >>Men and women. HIV doesn't give a rat's a.s >> about your silly bigotry or Fumento's ancient delirium. > >That's true, aids doesn't give a rats a.s about me. >I'm straight, white and don't do drugs. And I hope not having sex at all. I can imagine the kind of kids you'd have. Poor dears. But maybe they'd grow up strong, open-hearted and liberal and perhaps teach you not to be such a dedicated a.shole? Maybe you could learn that on your own?? I doubt it. >> Sex is good. Sex is fun. Protecting each other from getting or giving >> a disease is just good sense. >> >I'd say you were a little late worring about that. Nope. As long as one is alive and sexually active, it is not too late to think about protecting your partner or protecting yourself. George M. Carter ** Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-445. Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA. The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Gosh--and you claimed you weren't a bigot!! I have never said that. Why do you make up such sh.t ? Does reality scare you that bad? Not only am I a bigot, I am also a racist, sexist and a white non drug using heterosexual. Now, you can use the space provided below to make your point. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> >> Gosh--and you claimed you weren't a bigot!! > >I have never said that. Why do you make up such sh.t ? Well, dear me, forgive me. I'm glad you realize you're a bigot. >Does reality scare you that bad? Fear arises like any emotion and dissipates. The question is non sequitur. >Not only am I a bigot, I am also a racist, sexist and >a white non drug using heterosexual. I see. >Now, you can use the space provided below >to make your point. Best of luck with your grim self-diagnosis! George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > >I have never said that. Why do you make up such sh.t ? > > Well, dear me, forgive me. I'm glad you realize you're a bigot. Well sure I am a bigot among other things. I disagree with you don't I ? >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Well sure I am a bigot among other things. >I disagree with you don't I ? LOL. Another rhetorical non-sequitur question for which there is no answer. Disagreeing with me is not the criteria for establishing the obvious fact that you embrace and wallow in being a bigot. It is a curable condition even as it is a despicable choice of lifestyle. It causes you significant suffering. So I hope you find healing. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> > LOL. Another rhetorical non-sequitur question for which there is no > answer. LOL, you are the only one who believes that line. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> LOL. Another rhetorical non-sequitur question for which there is no >> answer. > >LOL, you are the only one who believes that line. LOL. you are an amazing seer to know what all readers think. On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:22:52 -0600, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote: >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> LOL. Another rhetorical non-sequitur question for which there is no >> answer. > >LOL, you are the only one who believes that line. LOL. you are an amazing seer to know what all readers think. GM Carter, Aren't You The One Who Claims To Know, And Declares With Soberness What Has Been "Discredited" By The Scientific And Medical Authorities? Shouldn't the consumer be entrusted with information and resources which dissent from the conventional medical model re: 'HIV/AIDS?' Kelly Jon Landis HIV/AIDS Alternative Views http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous snip >GM Carter, Aren't You The One Who Claims To Know, And Declares With >Soberness What Has Been "Discredited" By The Scientific And Medical >Authorities? Kelly Jon-Landis, Aren't You The One Who Claims That HIV Doesn't Exist or Maybe Is Harmless Despite The Evidence of Thousands of Disparate Researchers In Many Fields All Over The World? >Shouldn't the consumer be entrusted with information and resources which >dissent from the conventional medical model re: 'HIV/AIDS?' People shouldn't be fed a stream of bullshit and lies that might cause them to be encourage to f.ck without a condom, as Paul suggests, resulting in increased spread of a very likely fatal infection. HIV disease and AIDS do not give a fig for your line of nonsense either. Denialists have been and should be discredited for the most part because they are as wrong as the Catholic Church when it proclaimed geocentrism. George M. Carter > "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > population. > The really funny part is faggots have 50% of aids cases. So if as you say above "faggots have 50% of aids cases" who has the other 50% of AIDS cases. And how did it change from being almost a 100% gay disease (in the West) in it's early days to one that now if you look at the whole world is predominantly a heterosexual disease? Gary Stein "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message > So if as you say above "faggots have 50% of aids cases" who has the other > 50% of AIDS cases. The other 98% of the world population. > "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> So if as you say above "faggots have 50% of aids cases" who has the other >> 50% of AIDS cases. > > The other 98% of the world population. Regardless of weather it's 98% or 90% the point is that much more then 50% of worlds AIDS cases are in heterosexuals the actual percentage is much higher then 50%. I have not looked at the world wide number recently but a good estimate would be that AIDS in the Western Industrialized countries makes up less then 5% of the worlds AIDS patients. And that heterosexuals make up the vast majority of AIDS patients in that non-Western world population. Thus to call AIDS a gay disease is simply absurd on it's face. One could truthfully say AIDS was first recognized in the gay male population of the US, and that in most Western Industrialized countries gay males make up a predominant majority of those who have been diagnosed with AIDS as of 2004. One could also say that the number of new AIDS cases reported annually in the American gay male population had been declining from 1995 through 2002 and shown only very slight growth since, while the number of AIDS cases in American women of color has been on a steady path of growth since the inception of epidemic and now can be seen as a very significant aspect of AIDS in the US and unless something changes soon we will see a return to the numbers of new AIDS cases per year that was seen in the US pre 1995. Gary Stein "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote... > Regardless of weather it's 98% or 90% the point is that much more then 50% > of worlds AIDS cases are in heterosexuals the actual percentage is much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > make up the vast majority of AIDS patients in that non-Western world > population. Except that heterosexuals make up from 90% to 97% of the world's population. What I and others have been saying is that in Western countries at least, homosexual men make up a grossly disproportionate number of HIV/AIDS cases. I'm not exactly sure what this proves; for example, 99% of all Ebola cases in the U.S. might occur among laboratory researchers, while in Africa 99% occur among the general population. But I suppose it does show that you can't compare the two, who Ebola infects in Africa is really irrelevant to who it infects in the U.S. > One could also say that the number of new AIDS cases reported annually in > the American gay male population had been declining from 1995 through 2002 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > AIDS in the US and unless something changes soon we will see a return to the > numbers of new AIDS cases per year that was seen in the US pre 1995. Once again, you are obsfucating things. "AIDS" cases among gay men declined in that period as a direct result of the new drugs, but HIV infections have not declined at all. Other factors might include that being such a high-risk group, gay men get tested for HIV long before AIDS symptoms appear, while wommyn of color may not feel at risk and thus do not get tested and only find out when AIDS symptoms appear, thus skewing the statistics for "AIDS" higher among that group, even though the actual new infection rate among that group remains unchanged. In other words, gay men test HIV+ before AIDS appears, begin treatment, and the infection never progresses to AIDS, while wommyn of color test HIV+ after AIDS appears, thus adding to the number of AIDS cases in their category. The actual number of present and new HIV infections for each category remains the same, yet the statistics have been twisted to create the impression that one group has improved while the other group has gotten worse. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as 62 million. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to 57 million, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfilled. In any case, 62 million was no nearer the truth than 57 million, or than 145 million. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain." -- George Orwell, "1984" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ snip >Except that heterosexuals make up from 90% to 97% of the world's population. >What I and others have been saying is that in Western countries at least, >homosexual men make up a grossly disproportionate number of HIV/AIDS cases. Yes! And HIV disease has disproportionately affected African Americans in the US as well as Latinos. To a lesser but growing extent, Asians. >I'm not exactly sure what this proves; for example, 99% of all Ebola cases >in the U.S. might occur among laboratory researchers, while in Africa 99% >occur among the general population. But I suppose it does show that you >can't compare the two, who Ebola infects in Africa is really irrelevant to >who it infects in the U.S. Essentially true. It depends on the way in which an infection spreads and how rapidly. Ebola spreads through the air, kills rapidly (about 40-60% of infected individuals) and is generally so horrifying, it is pretty rapidly responded to and burns itself out. Sexually transmitted diseases disseminate in starts and spurts, as it were....more sexually active communities tend to be harder hit, with initial low/no levels rapidly shifting to higher incidence/prevalence. Less sexually active communities (e.g., married but not monogamous) may result in a lower, simmering incidence rate. snip >Once again, you are obsfucating things. "AIDS" cases among gay men >declined in that period as a direct result of the new drugs, but HIV [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the impression that one group has improved while the other group >has gotten worse. Well, here you're talking about incidence and prevalence, so be clear. There are data that might support or refute your points, but you should distinguish between 1) incidence of new HIV infections; 2) prevalence within a community; 3) incidence of AIDS cases; 4) prevalence of AIDS cases within a community. There is DEFINITELY a point to be made that many individuals within communities that do not perceive themselves at risk are likely to delay testing until an OI sends them to the hospital. Pregnancy is another means of HIV testing. States vary in their collection of HIV incidence data, of course. Some use more people friendly approaches, such as unique identifier systems. Others, at the insistence of the CDC, use name reporting, which may well REDUCE testing due to fears of stigma and discrimination, so we STILL don't have good HIV incidence data, even in states that collect such data. But those data can certainly tell us about trends in populations and which are "at risk" and which are developing increasing risk. George M. Carter > "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote... >> Regardless of weather it's 98% or 90% the point is that much more then [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > the impression that one group has improved while the other group > has gotten worse. With a careful look at the CDC number I can't refute what you say with actual numbers. However I do not accept your premise that either the rate of new HIV infections in the Gay Male community in the US has remained static, or that the rate of new HIV infections in women of color is not in fact growing. My recollection of the epidemlogical data presented by the Washington State Department of Health is that at least for the state of Washington both of your statements are untrue. In this state new HIV infections among the Gay Male population peaked in the early 90's and has been declining ever since data has been available. Also that the rate of HIV infections in communities of color both male and female but more predominantly in women of color have been increasing by double digits percentage wise since new HIV case data has been available. I am a member of the Washington State HIV/AIDS Prevention Council and also a member of the Region 3 planning Council so I receive multiple briefing each year on the Epi data for the state of Washington. Gary Stein "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote... > With a careful look at the CDC number I can't refute what you say with > actual numbers. However I do not accept your premise that either the rate of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Council and also a member of the Region 3 planning Council so I receive > multiple briefing each year on the Epi data for the state of Washington. I wasn't saying that it WAS the case, just a possibility that could account for the statistics. Another scenario to explain the above (that the rate of new HIV infections among wommyn of color is increasing) might be that wommyn of color have begun to feel more at risk, are therefore getting tested more, and that although the actual prevalance of HIV among them hasn't increased, the number of infections being detected has increased, leading to the perception that "new HIV infections" are increasing. Of course, that is just a possibility, I don't know if that's what's actually occurring. I still stand behind my belief that various special interest groups distort statistical data to further their agendas and extract more government money for their causes. "The book was reviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Assn as "the best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess their personal risk." Who to believe? Fanatic GM Carter or the American Medical Association? What a hard choice. P.S. Carter. Only 11% of American so called 'AIDS' cases are heterosexual non drugs users. ALL ARE POOR. >"The book was reviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Assn as "the >best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess >their personal risk." Wow. You'll make up any crap, won't you. >Who to believe? Fanatic GM Carter or the American Medical Association? >What a hard choice. For you, not. Frankly, I don't believe this outre claim. >P.S. Carter. Only 11% of American so called 'AIDS' cases are heterosexual >non drugs users. ALL ARE POOR. I see. That means HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Even if this is true, so what? But the way you pull numbers out of a hat, I simply don't believe you. George M. Carter Go check. Anyway who cares what you believe? Not me. You believe so much utter nonsense it is really sad. Additional Praise for The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS * "The arguments, statistics and perceptions that he addresses to support his position appear almost as irrefutable as they are controversial." – David Shaw, New York Times Book Review * "This is a backlash book that is thoroughly researched, poignantly written, and a must-read for anyone interested in learning the dynamics of the HIV epidemic or health care planning . . . . Fumento's book is currently the best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess their personal risk and, as an informed electorate, take a closer look at overall health care spending, particularly the power of political action committees, the media hype, and the influence of AIDS alarmists." – Virginia M. Anderson, M.D., Journal of the American Medical Association * "Mr. Fumento marshals a substantial amount of epidemiological data and interprets it in a credible fashion to support his contention. He demonstrates successfully that the `heterosexual breakout' widely predicted in the mid-1980s has failed to materialize and does not seem likely to. The book is well worth reading for this critical reinterpretation of the available data." – Andrew M. Wiesenthal, M.D., New England Journal of Medicine * "[A] tour de force." – Simon Chapman, British Medical Journal * "The best documented, most provocative and informative AIDS book since And the Band Played On." – Booklist (American Library Association) * "A merciless – though often legitimate – indictment of the purveyors of panic." – Patricia Cohen, Washington Monthly * "The best book on AIDS hysteria today is The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento." – Arthur Hu, Asian Week * "[Myth] will undoubtedly become the most important nonfiction book on AIDS since Shilts's And the Band Played On and Paul Monette's Borrowed Time." – Stuart Byron, The Advocate (national gay weekly) * "[Myth] counters the predictions of an imminent AIDS epidemic among the general population. In a rapid fire, journalistic style, Fumento, a frequent writer on AIDS, reinterprets figures and conditions, and notes who benefits and who suffers from alarmist publicity. A refreshing, upbeat, AIDS book." – Book News, Inc. (1990) * "[Fumento] has updated statistics now to support his basic message: AIDS is not on the verge of wiping out civilization; it is a fatal viral disease that is running its course just like all viral diseases do. He explains how the HIV virus works, how the medical establishment and the media are creating the hysteria, what interests are behind the distortions (not all of them are bad people), and how terror about a disaster that will not happen is draining resources from the people who really need them." – Book News, Inc. (1993) Read more about The Myth of Heterosexual Aids and Michael Fumeneto's additional work on AIDS. http://www.fumento.com/goodmyth.html Nine years ago, January 1990, my book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS came out. The Advocate said it "will undoubtedly become the most important nonfiction book on AIDS since Shilts’s And the Band Played On and Paul Monette’s Borrowed Time," while the Journal of the American Medical Association called it "thoroughly researched, poignantly written, and a must-read for anyone interested in learning the dynamics of the HIV epidemic." http://www.fumento.com/pozaids.html |
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.