Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Less than .5% of US Adults are HIV Positive

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Less than .5% of US Adults are HIV Positive
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

cunning_stunt

Joined: 16 Dec 2007

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:28 am Post subject:

Quote:

Perhaps those figures mean (and I apologise if I misread), that one would need 7000 unprotected exposures....and this takes into account the fact only 0.5% of the population has AIDS, i.e. 1/35 chance vs 1/7000 chance. Obviously then, this figure would be at best a rough a guide - depending on the demographic of your partner

No . The 1 in 7000 , means 7000 times having sex with someone who has the virus . It's even less of a chance for general unprotected sex .

(Edit : I have heard numbers as low as 4000 as shown in this article ----------->

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020301.html

The most conservative estimate (and it's responsible to be conservative when peoples lives are at risk) is 1000 exposures equal a reasonable chance of getting aids . In reality even this number makes having unprotected sex an extremely unlikely way to get the hiv virus (because what are the chances you are going to be sleeping with someone who is hiv positive to start with ? And that many times ?) . But people still get it ...so be smart .

Besides , there are plenty of other scary things you can EASILY get if you don't wear a condom.....things that will ruin your sex , cause you to go mad , kill your liver etc etc etc ....cover up gents .

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:49 am Post subject:

cunning_stunt wrote:

Quote:

Ummm. You do realize AIDS drugs are only for people with HIV? They don't do anything else but interfere with the viruses ability to reproduce. I'm not sure why you would give people without AIDS these drugs.

This is very revealing . You obviously have no idea about false positives or how hiv testing works and the flaws .

Based on what I read HIV testing has a 1% false positive rate. I could find nothing to back up your claim about increased false positives in pregnant women.

Quote:

There are many diseases that people can die from , due to their low immune systems . This outcome does not require the hiv retrovirus .

If HIV is destroying their immune system then anti HIV drugs would be helpful. If they do not test positive, seems to me they are not given HIV drugs. Beyond that, so what?

Quote:

Well, it seems to me the best evidence based medicine says no. People who test positive for HIV should be put on anti viral meds asap.

Do you have any literature to back up that opinion ? That people with poor diet should be put on anti retrovirals ? Rolling Eyes

Do you know how toxic these drugs are ?

It seems to me that they are safe and effective. If they weren't they wouldn't receive FDA approval. Anything is toxic in high amounts. This is why medicine always has a correct dosage. Vitamin A is quite beneficial but toxic in high amounts. What's your real point?

Quote:

Don't be lazy...you seem interested in the issue . You have questions in this regard then go and do the research , instead of asking me to keep doing it for you .

I'm not in the business of researching *your* claims. You make them. Back them up. Here. I did my research. I found nothing to support your claims. You, sir, are a bald faced liar. Now prove me wrong.

Quote:

I think it's because of widespread unprotected sex.

Do you realise how tiny the odds of contracting hiv through heterosexual sex are ? There is no way this can account for the masses of deaths each year . If aids is only related to hiv , then it's the most prevelent std . Even though it's the hardest to spread . Can you explain that ?

It seems to me AIDS is spread most readily by coming in contact with blood. Vaginal sex is lower risk. However, even heterosexuals engage in the more bloody form of sex involving the back door. So my hypothesis is Africans don't confine themselves to missionary sex. Further, sex isn't the only transmission method. IV drug use is another method. This doesn't go on in Africa?

Quote:

Cry as much as you like..I've spent 4 years reading about this phenomenon . I'm not going to spend my time digging out the necessary data to appease you . Sorry , I'm far too lazy . If you are interested be a big boy and go do some research and come to your own conclusions .

I'm not crying. I just find you're making a lot of claims that are silly on the face of it. I'd hope you'd be big enough to support your woo with literature.

Last edited by mindmetoo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:33 am Post subject:

cunning_stunt wrote:

No . The 1 in 7000 , means 7000 times having sex with someone who has the virus . It's even less of a chance for general unprotected sex .

1 in 7000? From your straightdope site:

Quote:

From there on out, statistically speaking, things deteriorate pretty fast. If your partner is HIV-positive, your chances of getting AIDS after one night are 1 in 5,000 with a condom, 1 in 500 without. Have sex with an HIV-positive partner 500 times using condoms and your chances escalate to 1 in 11. Skip the gift wrap and they're 2 in 3.

Your 1 in 7000 or 1 in 4000 figure assumes condom use, right? Not unprotected sex?

jdog2050

Joined: 17 Dec 2006

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

cunning_stunt wrote:

No . The 1 in 7000 , means 7000 times having sex with someone who has the virus . It's even less of a chance for general unprotected sex .

1 in 7000? From your straightdope site:

Quote:

Your 1 in 7000 or 1 in 4000 figure assumes condom use, right? Not unprotected sex?

And even then, we're talking *statistics* here. An unproven science in a friggin sea of unproven sciences. That 1 in 500 means you could potentially bone 1,000,000 people without a condom and not get it at all, or get it on your first time. Statistics are useful as a guidepost at best.

reactionary

Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Location: korreia

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject:

haha yeah, i mean, wonder if they did some experiments with this. "ok, subject A will now have intercourse with this hiv infected hooker 500 times without a condom."

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject:

reactionary wrote:

haha yeah, i mean, wonder if they did some experiments with this.

"ok, subject A will now have intercourse with this hiv infected hooker 500 times without a condom."

I would imagine they figure it out with prostitutes. By which I mean they compare HIV+ prostitutes who use condoms and those who don't. Then they figure out how many of their clients have become infected.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject:

Otherside wrote:

cunning_stunt wrote:

You people need to do some research about hiv and stop letting yourselves be scaremongered by pharmaceutical companies and the sensationalistic media . The fact of the matter is that it's just extremely hard to get the disease via heterosexual sex . In fact it's been shown that it would take on average 7000 exposures for a man and 3500 for a women to have any significant chance of getting it . Factored into this are risks of people having std's and the likes .

I really have to dispute this 7000/3500 number. As a male, this would dicate I would be able "on average" to have unprotected sex with an aids infected person EVERYDAY for 20 years, before I had a "significant" chance of getting AIDS. And that's assuming each and EVERYONE has AIDS.

Let's get real.

Perhaps those figures mean (and I apologise if I misread), that one would need 7000 unprotected exposures....and this takes into account the fact only 0.5% of the population has AIDS, i.e. 1/35 chance vs 1/7000 chance. Obviously then, this figure would be at best a rough a guide - depending on the demographic of your partner.

No, that is per-act with infected partner.

Here are the stats of risk of contracting HIV for various acts.

Quote:

#These estimates of risk of transmission from sexual exposure assume no condom use.
The risk for blood transfusion is approximately 9,000 per 10,000 exposures to blood contaminated with HIV.
*Refers to oral intercourse performed on a man.
This figure reproduced and modified from Smith DK, Grohskopf LA, Black RJ, et al. Antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection-drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV in the United States: recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-2):1-20.

http://depts.washington.edu/hivaids/post/case5/fig1d.html

cunning_stunt

Joined: 16 Dec 2007

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject:

Thanks "the peel" ...those stats areblower than most I've seen ...,but they still illustrate the point . (in South Africa I'd not suggest that name ) .

Just want to point out the little * per 10 000 figure to the little clever boys who know so much about hiv . Rolling Eyes

Vaginal sex then comes in at 2000 exposures .

Quote:

Perfectly true . But you'd be freaking unlucky . Once you can assilulate and accomodate this point , you have to query what is killing all those people in africa , and if giving them highly toxic drugs in the answers . So far these drugs are killing more people than they are helping in africa , despite what some little special boys feel about the issue . Rolling Eyes

Quote:

What nonsense . You talk of the FDA as if they are some sort of altruistic group . Grow up ! These drugs were originally intended for cancer treatment , but the bad effects were considered to outweight the good . Whilst the debate is on as to how well they work for aids patients in western countires (do you know some of the longest surviving people with hiv never touched these drugs and actively oppose them ? ) ..there is no doubt that they do not work for people with poor diets and low immune systems due to environmental factors ....they kill them quicker . Despite this factual knowledge pharmaceutical companies are trying to silence the movement that suggests vitamins be part of their health regime purely based on the fact that people have limited income in africa , and are pouring this poisen down their throats and callously sending them to an early grave .

Quote:

Do what you like and go where your integrity leads you . I'm not here to preach and convert . If you find what I offer interesting and know how to use a search engine , then it's all there for you . Use it or don't use it....I just don't care either way . You are not significant or interesting in the fight against the disease .

Quote:

So you attribute the phenomena in africa to a bunch of anal sex ? If you'd propose such a view in a scientific journal or a court of law , you'd be laughed off . Firstly you are making a bogus assumption that african people are interested in anal sex...which is mostly a twisted european kink which most african people would not consider erotic. Secondly, while the risk of anal sex is higher it's not significanly high enough to explain all the cases of AIDS (remember , me and many others suggest AIDS is very real and active...but not necessarily related to hiv) .

Anyone interested in why people are dying in africa would not be satisfied with the offer of "they contract hiv sexually" ....it just is not sufficient to explain the phenomenon .

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject:

cunning_stunt wrote:

Quote:

What nonsense . You talk of the FDA as if they are some sort of altruistic group . Grow up !

What evidence do you have to believe the FDA is allowing unsafe AIDS drugs onto the market?

Quote:

These drugs were originally intended for cancer treatment , but the bad effects were considered to outweight the good .

a) really? got a source? You make a lot of claims but you really do fail to ever back them up. Even when asked.

b) Which ones? All of them?

Quote:

Whilst the debate is on as to how well they work for aids patients in western countires (do you know some of the longest surviving people with hiv never touched these drugs and actively oppose them ? ) .

As in any disease (typhoid mary, for example) there are people who are merely carriers. So what?

Quote:

.there is no doubt that they do not work for people with poor diets and low immune systems due to environmental factors ....they kill them quicker .

You keep repeating this point as if that will make it true. I can keep saying "got the medical literature on that"?

Quote:

Despite this factual knowledge pharmaceutical companies are trying to silence the movement that suggests vitamins be part of their health regime purely based on the fact that people have limited income in africa , and are pouring this poisen down their throats and callously sending them to an early grave .

Got the literature on that?

Quote:

Look, I have 3 medical studies that say vitamins simply don't work against AIDS and in fact kill people dead. So you're 100% wrong. Argument over?

Quote:

So you attribute the phenomena in africa to a bunch of anal sex ? If you'd propose such a view in a scientific journal or a court of law , you'd be laughed off .

Vaginal, anal, and IV drug use.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject:

bump Less than cunning user name, got that literature?

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject:

cunning_stunt wrote:

(in South Africa I'd not suggest that name ) .

"Thepeel" you mean? Why not? I don't know much about the country.

Zaria32

Joined: 04 Dec 2007

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:35 am Post subject:

Cunning, you made a comment about 1 in 5 Americans was it (?) have herpes... do you mean genital herpes, or do you mean ANY form of herpes such as cold sores, chicken pox, shingles etc. Yes, I know that genital herpes and cold sores are simplex, and chicken pox and shingles zoster... Just wondering exactly what you meant...

Boodleheimer

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Location: working undercover for the Man

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:09 am Post subject:

cunning_stunt wrote:

Vaginal sex then comes in at 2000 exposures .

being heterosexual doesn't mean you only have vaginal sex.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:24 am Post subject:

KWhitehead wrote:

cunning_stunt wrote:

Vaginal sex then comes in at 2000 exposures .

being heterosexual doesn't mean you only have vaginal sex.

Or you're not an IV drug user or you're not, as many in africa, subject to substandard hospital facilities (think Libya).

But apparently not so cunning user name seems to think that's a minor point.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:33 am Post subject:

Bumped as per cunningstunts request. Let the schooling commence, CS.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe