10 Reasons We Still Need HIV Research...

10 Reasons We Still Need HIV Research and Care

There are 68 comments on the EDGE story from Jan 1, 2014, titled 10 Reasons We Still Need HIV Research and Care. In it, EDGE reports that:

Finding a cure, searching for a vaccine, lowering rates of infection: that's why HIV research is needed As 2014 begins, EDGE looks at the year in review, revisiting the top reasons that our community must continue the fight for HIV research, the search for a vaccine and the fight for a cure, in the midst of countless phony panaceas.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#52 Jan 5, 2014
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
One more point. There are so many more straights than gays that if only 10% of straights had AIDS an 100% of gays had it, that would still be more straights sick than gays. But it would also mean no gays without it and 90% of straights not having AIDS. It is ridiculous to compare raw numbers and call this a heterosexual disease in this situation. I don't really expect you to be able to use your big head and really understand this, but maybe some other gays will get it and ignore your destructive information.
Really a good point, but in your attempt at greater accuracy you are glossing over other essential factors.

Most important is that the classification "MSM" does not define exclusively gay people, especially in the HIV stats. The majority of young male prostitutes are heteros just trying to get money to survive, shelter and feed themselves (and usually their drug habits). A knowledgeable breakdown of the available US stats and their modes of collect show this ... to those who actually know these processes. The CDC has yet to address these gaps.

In some African nations, the HIV infection stat is above 30% of the general population. What you attempt to suggest is a numerical impossibility, even if absolutely every gay person in the country were infected, and this is far from the truth. The proportions still don't skew the way you want them to.

Sorry, but gay people still only comprise about 5-6% of all human births.

Again, even if absolutely every gay person in a country were to be infected, this still doesn't add up to greater than the percentage of infected hetero persons in these countries.

The proper reference to HIV is what it's name suggests: the HUMAN Immunodeficiency Virus.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#53 Jan 5, 2014
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
One more point. There are so many more straights than gays that if only 10% of straights had AIDS an 100% of gays had it, that would still be more straights sick than gays.
Hey freeek, the numbers are not even close. The number of AIDS deaths in Africa as a _percentage_, you moron, of the population there wipes out your pitiful attempt to suggest that the glbt people are a small part of the population.

And even in the US, most of the AIDS cases for the past couple of decades have correlated much more strongly with race and income level than with gay identification.

And by your "logic," even if what you are trying to argue, we would still have to defame all str8 men as violent rapists of women...since so many str8 men actually are.

Of course, educated people don't think in the sick ignorant, defaming, hateful ways you christer bigots do.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#55 Jan 6, 2014
Christsharia Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey freeek, the numbers are not even close. The number of AIDS deaths in Africa as a _percentage_, you moron, of the population there wipes out your pitiful attempt to suggest that the glbt people are a small part of the population.
And even in the US, most of the AIDS cases for the past couple of decades have correlated much more strongly with race and income level than with gay identification.
And by your "logic," even if what you are trying to argue, we would still have to defame all str8 men as violent rapists of women...since so many str8 men actually are.
Of course, educated people don't think in the sick ignorant, defaming, hateful ways you christer bigots do.
You are delusional. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/aids...
Chance

Grove City, PA

#56 Jan 6, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Really a good point, but in your attempt at greater accuracy you are glossing over other essential factors.
Most important is that the classification "MSM" does not define exclusively gay people, especially in the HIV stats. The majority of young male prostitutes are heteros just trying to get money to survive, shelter and feed themselves (and usually their drug habits). A knowledgeable breakdown of the available US stats and their modes of collect show this ... to those who actually know these processes. The CDC has yet to address these gaps.
In some African nations, the HIV infection stat is above 30% of the general population. What you attempt to suggest is a numerical impossibility, even if absolutely every gay person in the country were infected, and this is far from the truth. The proportions still don't skew the way you want them to.
Sorry, but gay people still only comprise about 5-6% of all human births.
Again, even if absolutely every gay person in a country were to be infected, this still doesn't add up to greater than the percentage of infected hetero persons in these countries.
The proper reference to HIV is what it's name suggests: the HUMAN Immunodeficiency Virus.


You are delusional, too. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/aids...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#57 Jan 6, 2014
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
You are delusional, too. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/aids...
I don't think you correctly understand my position.

Thanks for the link, though. I was unaware of the Zairean folk belief that monkey blood rubbed into cuts had aphrodisiac properties. This certainly is interesting. I wonder if there is a similar folk belief where HIV made the species jump to humans.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#58 Jan 6, 2014
Christsharia Law wrote:
1. And even in the US, most of the AIDS cases for the past couple of decades have correlated much more strongly with race and income level than with gay identification.
2. And by your "logic," even if what you are trying to argue, we would still have to defame all str8 men as violent rapists of women...since so many str8 men actually are.
3. educated
1. Poor gays, rich gays, they're all gay.
2. and all gay men as the violent rapists of men.
3. There's that word again. I doesn't apply to you.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#59 Jan 6, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you correctly understand my position.
Thanks for the link, though. I was unaware of the Zairean folk belief that monkey blood rubbed into cuts had aphrodisiac properties. This certainly is interesting. I wonder if there is a similar folk belief where HIV made the species jump to humans.
I think I understand that you are trying to differentiate between self-identified gay men and those who don't identify that way who just happen to screw around with men. The articles I am reading don't differentiate that way, and I'm not either. It is the same-sex behavior that is more dangerous than heterosexual behavior. The disease doesn't care what you call yourself. You might also note that among those having heterosexual contact, anal is more dangerous than vaginal, and virgins having sex are more at risk than non-virgins. It seems apparent that sex that might rip tissue and expose the bloodstream is the most effective means is transmitting the virus. Anal is dangerous. Since two men don't have a vagina between them, MSM sex is a pretty efficient way to get HIV.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#60 Jan 6, 2014
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand that you are trying to differentiate between self-identified gay men and those who don't identify that way who just happen to screw around with men. The articles I am reading don't differentiate that way, and I'm not either. It is the same-sex behavior that is more dangerous than heterosexual behavior. The disease doesn't care what you call yourself. You might also note that among those having heterosexual contact, anal is more dangerous than vaginal, and virgins having sex are more at risk than non-virgins. It seems apparent that sex that might rip tissue and expose the bloodstream is the most effective means is transmitting the virus. Anal is dangerous. Since two men don't have a vagina between them, MSM sex is a pretty efficient way to get HIV.
No, I wasn't talking about that at all!

Whatever gave you that idea?
Chance

Grove City, PA

#61 Jan 6, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I wasn't talking about that at all!
Whatever gave you that idea?
You did. If you have another point, you'd better try again because you failed to make it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#62 Jan 6, 2014
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand that you are trying to differentiate between self-identified gay men and those who don't identify that way who just happen to screw around with men. The articles I am reading don't differentiate that way, and I'm not either. It is the same-sex behavior that is more dangerous than heterosexual behavior. The disease doesn't care what you call yourself. You might also note that among those having heterosexual contact, anal is more dangerous than vaginal, and virgins having sex are more at risk than non-virgins. It seems apparent that sex that might rip tissue and expose the bloodstream is the most effective means is transmitting the virus. Anal is dangerous. Since two men don't have a vagina between them, MSM sex is a pretty efficient way to get HIV.
The articles you're reading NEED to differentiate precisely that way.

And we aren't talking about the random hetero who just decides to get a little hedo on a few too many Jagers, so don't present as though it is.

The truth behind the "MSM" descriptor is prostitution for survival and drug habit by hetero KIDS.

Failure to focus there is precisely why the numbers are rising, and fuzzying the definition just makes it harder to address.

Ever actually see the wording of the intake stats sheet? It fails to make the distinction between GayMSM and heteroMSM. This isn't just fluff, crosspatch.

OK. So you write a grant for a program of education and condom intervention. You go looking for gay hookers, you aren't going to be quite in the same part of town as when hunting the hetero street teen hookers. You see, they don't really mix. Add ethnicity into the variables and it's gonna get even more complicated, both gay and hetero.

Pick a city. Pick your own city. Where are you going to go to find each of these demo groups? That's where you will have to go to do your intervention and education. Right there, not someplace else.

Most of these statisticians are counting moose in Michigan AND Miami because they both begin with "M".
Chance

Grove City, PA

#64 Jan 6, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The articles you're reading NEED to differentiate precisely that way.
And we aren't talking about the random hetero who just decides to get a little hedo on a few too many Jagers, so don't present as though it is.
The truth behind the "MSM" descriptor is prostitution for survival and drug habit by hetero KIDS.
Failure to focus there is precisely why the numbers are rising, and fuzzying the definition just makes it harder to address.
Ever actually see the wording of the intake stats sheet? It fails to make the distinction between GayMSM and heteroMSM. This isn't just fluff, crosspatch.
OK. So you write a grant for a program of education and condom intervention. You go looking for gay hookers, you aren't going to be quite in the same part of town as when hunting the hetero street teen hookers. You see, they don't really mix. Add ethnicity into the variables and it's gonna get even more complicated, both gay and hetero.
Pick a city. Pick your own city. Where are you going to go to find each of these demo groups? That's where you will have to go to do your intervention and education. Right there, not someplace else.
Most of these statisticians are counting moose in Michigan AND Miami because they both begin with "M".
To paraphrase dear Hillary, "You've got males getting HIV from having sex with other males. What difference does it make?" It doesn't matter if they call themselves gay, if they are high-class hookers, teen hookers, older hookers, fancy themselves in love, are just trying it out, or getting raped in prison. IT IS MEN HAVING SEX WITH MEN THAT MOST COMMONLY PASSES THE VIRUS FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. You are just trying to spin it to give gay men a pass.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#65 Jan 7, 2014
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
To paraphrase dear Hillary, "You've got males getting HIV from having sex with other males. What difference does it make?" It doesn't matter if they call themselves gay, if they are high-class hookers, teen hookers, older hookers, fancy themselves in love, are just trying it out, or getting raped in prison. IT IS MEN HAVING SEX WITH MEN THAT MOST COMMONLY PASSES THE VIRUS FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. You are just trying to spin it to give gay men a pass.
Read my last two paragraphs.

It matters because who they are dictates where and how you will reach them.

The current classification system interferes with that ... as well as giving a false impression to the general public such as yourself.

Chunking information that crudely may be convenient for your personal thought processes and whatever propaganda purposes you may have, but for those wishing to mount an effective assault on the progression of this disease such imprecision is wasteful, and as ineffective as the stats themselves show.

The hallmark card that you send to a teen princess may be quite effective, but to a homeless gutter-punk hooking for a motel room to get out of the cold, puppies and butterflies will be trampled beneath the holes in the soles of their doc martins. To communicate with a segment of the population, you've got to talk their language. To do that you've got to know which group you actually need to be talking to, how to find them, and how to get them to listen.

The good shepherd goes to where the lost sheep actually are stuck, and doesn't just stand in the barnyard and whistle for them. He certainly doesn't just stand on his porch and verbally abuse them from afar.
FundieraiSing Mullahs

Philadelphia, PA

#66 Jan 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Poor gays, rich gays, they're all gay.
2. and all gay men as the violent rapists of men.
3. There's that word again. I doesn't apply to you.
You stupid filth, you don't know what "correlation" means.

The stronger, statistical likelihood even in the US now is that a person being HIV positive will be poor or minority and young. This is more usual statistically than men who have sex with men (but who don't identify as openly gay) being HIV positive, although there's overlap.

The number of AIDS cases and AIDS deaths worldwide is overwhelmingly heterosexual. So go use your sick "logic" to defame heterosexuality. Also for the violent rapes of women by str8 men. Also go defame those who smoke, a reckless thing to do, and then get cancer. It's the same "logic."

Except you don't have a point to make. You only have a mental illness of homophobic bigotry. You anti rational, uneducated, bigoted, fundie rube.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#67 Jan 7, 2014
FundieraiSing Mullahs wrote:
<quoted text>
You stupid filth, you don't know what "correlation" means.
I know you are disturbed and in need of professional help.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#68 Jan 7, 2014
FundieraiSing Mullahs wrote:
The number of AIDS cases and AIDS deaths worldwide
You don't get to use "worldwide." How about here in the US where gays like you are 'educated.' Only 4% of the population, that being your club, is responsible for just about all of the HIV/AIDS in this country. Ain't ya proud?
FundieraiSing Mullahs

Philadelphia, PA

#70 Jan 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you are disturbed and in need of professional help.
Hey ignorant, stupid filth: You couldn't address the issues there, and homophobia, not variation in sexual orientation, is the mental malady.

Okay, Jedediah? You jeeesus garbage.
FundieraiSing Mullahs

Philadelphia, PA

#72 Jan 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get to use "worldwide."
You mongoloid, AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of heterosexuals. You just discount African cases due to your racism. And the stronger correlations in the US at this point are race, poverty and young age.

If you want to "think" consistently as you do regarding gay men than you should equally be defaming heterosexuals since so many str8 men violently rape women. Or go defame those who smoke tobacco and then get cancer.

Except educated persons don't think like that.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#73 Jan 7, 2014
FundieraiSing Mullahs wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey ignorant, stupid filth: You couldn't address the issues there, and homophobia, not variation in sexual orientation, is the mental malady.
Okay, Jedediah? You jeeesus garbage.
Very angry, very disturbed.
FundieraiSing Mullahs

Philadelphia, PA

#74 Jan 7, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Very angry, very disturbed.
Hey mongoloid, you are a disgusting and hypocritical and ignorant and lying bigot, and trash like you will find yourselves rejected by society at large in the coming years. I'm just your preview, you stupid filth.

And AIDS worldwide is overwhelmingly a heterosexually transmitted disease, your perpetual racism notwithstanding.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#75 Jan 7, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Read my last two paragraphs.
It matters because who they are dictates where and how you will reach them.
The current classification system interferes with that ... as well as giving a false impression to the general public such as yourself.
Chunking information that crudely may be convenient for your personal thought processes and whatever propaganda purposes you may have, but for those wishing to mount an effective assault on the progression of this disease such imprecision is wasteful, and as ineffective as the stats themselves show.
The hallmark card that you send to a teen princess may be quite effective, but to a homeless gutter-punk hooking for a motel room to get out of the cold, puppies and butterflies will be trampled beneath the holes in the soles of their doc martins. To communicate with a segment of the population, you've got to talk their language. To do that you've got to know which group you actually need to be talking to, how to find them, and how to get them to listen.
The good shepherd goes to where the lost sheep actually are stuck, and doesn't just stand in the barnyard and whistle for them. He certainly doesn't just stand on his porch and verbally abuse them from afar.
Liberals take the cake, always railing about conservatives don't care about the poor while they themselves will take advantage of a poor teenager and risk giving him a potentially fatal, incurable disease on top of that. Any chance gay men could be educated to under how EVIL that is? Nah, gay sex rules, and gay men must have their sex no matter what the cost to themselves and others. And gays have the gall to call me a POS.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Renee Richards Documentary Makes Broadcast Prem... (Jan '12) 1 hr TipsyFromCentralC... 2
News For transgender victims, respect starts with us... 2 hr TerriB1 38
News Transgender in the Military: Still a Bad Idea 4 hr Humanspirit 1
News Trans woman in Halifax questions if prejudice i... 11 hr Dr. Q 6
News Hundreds rally, march for transgender rights in... 11 hr Dr. Q 4
I need sexy massage in Jeddah (May '13) 13 hr TOP black eagle 107
News 'Shameless': How a Transgender Storyline Brings... Sun TipsyFromCentralC... 10
More from around the web