 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2005New infections. Boston AIDS Walk.
People meet for the first time at the Boston AIDS Walk. Some number of those people as a result of meeting for the first time at the Boston AIDS Walk have sex. Some number of those people pass along an unknown human immunodeficiency virus infection to the new sex partner. a. How much money is raised at the Boston AIDS Walk? b. How much does it cost to treat a person? c. How many people could be treated with the money raised at the Boston AIDS Walk? d. Would the money raised at the Boston AIDS Walk cover the number people who got infected as a result of meeting a new sex partner at the Boston AIDS Walk? <dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message... > People meet for the first time at the Boston AIDS Walk. Some number of > those people as a result of meeting for the first time at the Boston [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > who got infected as a result of meeting a new sex partner at the Boston > AIDS Walk? Hahaha! I'm surprised I didn't think of that, but you're right. I've come to the conclusion that the only people who really care about HIV and AIDS are those who either have it already or are likely to contract it in the near future; everyone else doesn't give a sh.t. When I hear the activists talk about fighting AIDS, what they want is for the government to wave a magic wand and find a complete cure NOW, anything less is unacceptable and genocide. Nevermind that as wonderful as our science and technology is there is no possible cure that we can foresee for at least a century, they want it NOW and you are a hateful intolerant bigot for telling them that in the meantime they should take precautions and use discretion when choosing sexual partners. The AIDS Walk participants will definitely engage in unprotected sex with each other, perhaps under the delusion the $5000 they raise will pay to invent the cure. [snip] > Hahaha! I'm surprised I didn't think of that, but you're right. I've > come to the conclusion that the only people who really care about HIV > and AIDS are those who either have it already or are likely to contract > it in the near future; everyone else doesn't give a sh.t. Assumptions like that make an a.s out of you for sure; you can leave me out of it. > When I hear the activists talk about fighting AIDS, what they want is > for the government to wave a magic wand and find a complete cure NOW, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > unprotected sex with each other, perhaps under the delusion the $5000 > they raise will pay to invent the cure. Boy, you really are off the deep end, aren't you? Don't let reality affect your assumptions in any way; I am sure that will make you happier. -- Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Idaho State University > Boy, you really are off the deep end, aren't you? Don't let reality > affect your assumptions in any way; You do know this is 'Diablo" with another nym-change, don't you? B/ >> Boy, you really are off the deep end, aren't you? Don't let reality >> affect your assumptions in any way; > >You do know this is 'Diablo" with another nym-change, don't you? While we know that Dr. Farrell is little more than a rube stuck in a backwoods educational vacuum, the fate and life-purpose of pharma-apologist Brian Mailman isn't much better. Both are tortured by the pile of corpses that neither will actually own. Like Carter, they retreat as bald-faced cowards! >Would the money raised at the Boston AIDS Walk cover the number people >who got infected as a result of meeting a new sex partner at the Boston >AIDS Walk? Virtually all of the AIDS Walks have been scandalized by accountability issues. Many are no longer. As to the notion of organizations as disease vectors, perhaps time would be better spent investigating the legion of HIV-treating doctors who have been generously providing their HIV-infected patients with prescriptions for Viagra and other drugs to promote the liklihood and opportunity for spreading the disease. Gee, these doctors act as if the disease isn't spread sexually. I wonder why that is? <redrum1@alltel.net> wrote... >>Would the money raised at the Boston AIDS Walk cover the number people >>who got infected as a result of meeting a new sex partner at the Boston [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > patients with prescriptions for Viagra and other drugs to promote > the liklihood and opportunity for spreading the disease. The new national crisis is sex offenders receiving Viagra through Medicaid, and here in Texas they are demanding that Medicaid cut off Viagra to everyone. But it is no secret that Viagra and its competitors are as readily available in the gay community as meth and Ecstasy, and wild orgies involving all three are common. At least the taxpayers won't have to pay for the Viagra any longer, and while it is unethical for doctors to prescribe it to an HIV patient, the reality is that anyone can get it on the street so it doesn't matter. But I'll be damned if my tax money is going to pay for it, it's bad enough we have to pay a million dollars a year to keep each one alive longer to infect others - they have plenty of cash for their meth and Ecstasy, let them buy their own Viagra too. Oh, and I just heard that MDMA (Ecstasy) is being studied as a treatment for PTSD, as it induces a sense of well-being that counters traumatic memories. I suppose every tweeked-out HIV+ twinkie will then claim that the "trauma" and "stress" of their differently-abled HIV status entitles them to free Ecstasy at taxpayer expense. ><redrum1@alltel.net> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Medicaid, and here in Texas they are demanding that Medicaid cut >off Viagra to everyone. Medicaid is a boon to the Viagra purveyors - welfare for hardons. >But it is no secret that Viagra and its >competitors are as readily available in the gay community as meth >and Ecstasy, and wild orgies involving all three are common. Indeed - meth & X keeps 'em going while viagra keeps 'em coming! >At least the taxpayers won't have to pay for the Viagra any longer Wishful thinking - the taxpayers ARE still paying! >and while it is unethical for doctors to prescribe it to an HIV >patient, the reality is that anyone can get it on the street so >it doesn't matter. Wrong. It DOES matter. And the unethical doctors keep the contaminated juices flowing. Even the doctors are convinced that sexual contact has nothing to do with the spread of HIV and AIDS. As I asked before, is this really a mystery? H-E-L-L-O ?????? <redrum1@alltel.net> wrote... >>and while it is unethical for doctors to prescribe it to an HIV >>patient, the reality is that anyone can get it on the street so [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > As I asked before, is this really a mystery? I'm wondering what kind of trouble a doctor would get into if he did refuse to prescribe Viagra to an HIV patient. Under the ADA HIV is defined as a "disability," legally no different from being crippled or blind. I can already hear the protesters screaming about discrimination against the "disabled," not to mention discrimination against gays if the doctor refused to prescribe Viagra to an HIV+ gay man. It could also be argued that HIV medications cause impotence, therefore Viagra is an essential component of the drug cocktail treatment. Of course all this is silly, but even without Viagra they managed to spread it for 20 years; naturally the only solution is to remove them from the general population (quarantine), but in the meantime we do not have to be paying to fuel their compulsive sex drive that caused them to catch HIV in the first place. ><redrum1@alltel.net> wrote... >>>and while it is unethical for doctors to prescribe it to an HIV [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I'm wondering what kind of trouble a doctor would get into if he did >refuse to prescribe Viagra to an HIV patient. The physician is obligated to the patient (and by inference, the insurance company). In the U.S. the doctor has no obligation to the public at large. Socialized medicine would likely change that... >Under the ADA HIV is >defined as a "disability," legally no different from being crippled >or blind. I can already hear the protesters screaming about >discrimination against the "disabled," not to mention discrimination >against gays if the doctor refused to prescribe Viagra to an HIV+ gay >man. It could also be argued that HIV medications cause impotence, The argument has been made that having an HIV+ diagnosis contributes to the depression and anxiety which is commonly associated with impotence. >therefore Viagra is an essential component of the drug cocktail >treatment. Of course all this is silly, Actually, Viagra isn't part of the antiviral "cocktail" - it is a separate component of a "holistic approach based on observational medicine" ... (now that's being silly). > but even without Viagra they managed to spread it for 20 years; Drunk drivers also speed in their vehicles without turbochargers. Does that mean we should put drunk drivers in turbocharged cars? >naturally the only solution is to >remove them from the general population (quarantine), That worked in Cuba! >but in the meantime we do not have to be paying to >fuel their compulsive sex >drive that caused them to catch HIV in the first place. Viagra is only part of the bigger picture of disease vectors we know of as methamphetamine-fueled gay sex clubs, internet "dating" sites or ecstasy circuit parties. It is interesting to track geographically-localized outbreaks of STDs that have been repeatedly traced to these events. Interestingly, the association of HIV transmission to the transmission of STDs is, a best, a weak one. Even this newsgroups resident AIDS doctor, Robert Holzman admitted this one! |
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
|
©2008 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.