 |
 | 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 2006The Age of AIDS http://pbs.org/frontline/aids
The Age of AIDS http://pbs.org/frontline/aids A better documentary could have included "HIV/AIDS" and been titled something like "The Age That Abandoned the Scientific Method." "The Age of AIDS", or... "Reason Takes a Holiday" > A better documentary could have included "HIV/AIDS" and been titled > something like "The Age That Abandoned the Scientific Method." Please give an example... >A better documentary could have included "HIV/AIDS" and been titled >something like "The Age That Abandoned the Scientific Method." Partly true, but not the way you mean. There are denialists in the Congress and White House who to this day refuse to permit or fund needle exchange programs. They reduce infection rates. They are denialists and prefer people to die. The US government refuses to identify vulnerable populations such as men who have sex with men, sex workers and injection drug users. (In this, the US allies itself with the Islamic states.) They are denialists. People suffer and die. The US government won't set timelines or monetary goals for addressing the global pandemic. They hide their heads in the sand...more millions will die. Of AIDS. Caused by HIV. George M. Carter Scientific method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Don: You can read a number of example of what I mean at: http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/ If you have questions, of if you disagree, you can ask questions on the message board. I ask that you cite scientific evidence if you disagree with something. Personal attacks and such will not be posted, but I welcome those who disagree, because I am only interested in the scientific reality, not in the histrionics many who post on this group appear to require for emotional fulfillment. I ask that scientific claims be stated as a formal hypothesis, and I am willing to host formal, academic-style debates in which I can act as moderator. I have no personal agenda, which is why I often get attacked (most people who post on these kinds of newsgroups and speak as "experts" do have an agenda and little interest in the scientific method). I have taught the scientific method in university classes for over a decade and this is the only thing I feel that I owe any "allegience" to as a moderator. Unfortunately, we live in an age where a "Hannity & Combs" mentality prevails, and we can see the results for ourselves, both in biomedicine and in politics. > I have >no personal agenda, LOL. That's a load of bullshit. I am always disappointed with your response Mr Carter - you never contribute to an informed debate - just simply abusive. I look foward to the occasion where a balanced debate on the facts can help with the way forward. It is clear that the current paradigm is failing - 25 years and no cure - it just doesn't add up to me. If there is a possibility that we are looking at the hypothesis wrongly ( after all it wouldn't be the first time in medical history!) then we must be open-minded and challenge the curent view. I'd really appreciate the link to a peer reviewed document which explains why the Western manifestation of HIV/AIDS is so biassed toward homosexual/IV drug use and in African countries there appears to be no bias..and yet the accepted view is that this is the same disease, transmitted in the same manner. Just curious - and am challenging my understanding Russell >> I have >>no personal agenda, > > LOL. That's a load of bullshit. >I am always disappointed with your response Mr Carter - you never contribute >to an informed debate - just simply abusive. It's a long story. But I'm abusive to idiots that repeat the same crap ad nauseam and claim to be 'scientists' or some such nonsense. As to the claim that I "never contribute," this is inaccurate. >I'd really appreciate the link to a peer reviewed document which explains >why the Western manifestation of HIV/AIDS is so biassed toward homosexual/IV >drug use and in African countries there appears to be no bias..and yet the >accepted view is that this is the same disease, transmitted in the same >manner. Your request is confusing. It's really rather simple. HIV is a virus. It is transmitted via blood and semen. Not through the air. Not by sweat or tears (something Bill Frist, another supposed "expert" with an MD is too vindictive and cruel to understand). As such, the virus will get from person to person via these fluids. Now, human behavior takes on many forms. Some people are injection drug users. Some people earn income through sex. Some people have sex with the same sex; others with both; others with the opposite sex. The virus is more readily transmitted through anal sex. People with foreskins may be at higher risk of transmitting the virus--or becoming infected from a female partner. Suffice it to say, the virus got a "foothold" in distinct populations in different geographic regions. In the US, HIV is spreading most rapidly among certain sectors of the heterosexual community, notably men and women of color. There are a LOT of studies that address the epidemiology of the virus. Have you looked for them? George M. Carter Thank you for your response - yes I have read many articles - but am always keen to read the latest research on this complex issue...ans am always looking for the one that may give a different angle - so any links would be appreciated Russell >>I am always disappointed with your response Mr Carter - you never >>contribute [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > George M. Carter >HIV is a virus. It is transmitted via blood and semen. Not through the >air. Not by sweat or tears (something Bill Frist, another supposed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >foreskins may be at higher risk of transmitting the virus--or becoming >infected from a female partner. I thought the risk was lower, not higher. Is there conflicting evidence here? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > >HIV is a virus. It is transmitted via blood and semen. Not through the > >air. Not by sweat or tears (something Bill Frist, another supposed [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth See here for aids transmittince rates , variose modes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids >> >HIV is a virus. It is transmitted via blood and semen. Not through the >> >air. Not by sweat or tears (something Bill Frist, another supposed [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids I was talking about the circumcision part, not the anal sex part. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >>The virus is more readily transmitted through anal sex. People with >>foreskins may be at higher risk of transmitting the virus--or becoming >>infected from a female partner. > >I thought the risk was lower, not higher. Is there conflicting >evidence here? In Africa, there's a belief that circumcision protects men from AIDS. This may be because Muslims, who have different customs than other Africans, have a much lower rate of AIDS. Some recent research has shown that the benefit of circumcision is real, but marginal, certainly not something to depend on. Nonetheless, many Africans are getting their boys circumcised in the vain hope of protecting them from HIV. [] >In Africa, there's a belief that circumcision protects men from AIDS. >This may be because Muslims, who have different customs than other >Africans, have a much lower rate of AIDS. Some recent research has >shown that the benefit of circumcision is real, but marginal, certainly >not something to depend on. Nonetheless, many Africans are getting >their boys circumcised in the vain hope of protecting them from HIV. It's not vain - according to a fair amount of research and general epidemiology, transmission rates are *lower* in the case of circumcision. The problem is if people believe it is a magic bullet - it isn't. But from a population perspective, slowing the rate of transmission is a general good.  SignatureEllen Evans If my life wasn't funny, it would jeev@panix.com just be true, and that's unacceptable. Carrie Fisher snip... >>The virus is more readily transmitted through anal sex. People with >>foreskins may be at higher risk of transmitting the virus--or becoming >>infected from a female partner. > >I thought the risk was lower, not higher. Is there conflicting >evidence here? There is recent evidence that suggests circumcision can significantly reduce infection risk. There are many caveats. Usually, this must be done by age 18 or thereabouts. The equipment must be sterile, obviously. But the foreskin apparently provides opportunities for establishing infection. Circumcision, of course, does not eliminate the need for condoms. George M. Carter |
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.