← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 10387 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2003-10-10
2003-10-10 02:51 | User Profile
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=2&u=/nm/20031009/hl_nm/health_circumcision_hiv_dc[/url]
Uncircumcised Men Have Higher HIV Risk - Study
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Uncircumcised men are eight times as likely to become infected with HIV (news - web sites) than circumcised men, according to a study of nearly 2,300 men in India released on Thursday.
A researcher at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine suggested that the inner surface of the foreskin does not have the same protective layer as the outside, and is potentially more vulnerable to HIV.
Male circumcision is common in North America and elsewhere for religious and cultural reasons and to help prevent urinary tract infections and penile cancer.
The procedure involves removal of the foreskin, which covers the tip of the penis, and is typically done shortly after birth.
In the United States, some two-thirds of male infants are circumcised annually. Worldwide, the rates vary widely, depending on culture and religion. In many countries, including India, circumcision is uncommon.
"It's important that we offer measures to help curb the spread of AIDS (news - web sites), particularly in developing countries, where it continues to grow at an alarming rate," Dr. Steven Reynolds, post-doctoral fellow in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins and a study investigator said in a statement.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has said it no longer recommends routine circumcision because -- despite some medical benefit -- there can be complications.
Johns Hopkins also studied the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases among circumcised and uncircumcised men. Although the incidence of diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea and genital herpes was slightly higher among uncircumcised men, the difference was not statistically significant.
The research was part of a larger study investigating risk factors for HIV infection based on men attending one of three sexually transmitted disease clinics in Pune, India between 1993 and 2000.
Demographics, sexual risk behaviors -- including having sex with a prostitute -- and condom use were similar between both groups, Reynolds said.
He added that there are methods uncircumcised men may be able to use to protect themselves against HIV, including condoms and, in the future, a potential topical microbicide product that might be applied to the foreskin before sex.
"Circumcision as a potential prevention strategy requires confirmation by randomized clinical trials," Reynolds said. There currently are clinical trials underway in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa.
Results of the study were presented at a San Diego meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
2003-10-10 11:17 | User Profile
I don't believe it. There is no reason for circumcision. Yet the jews insist that everyone do it. It is sickning. I think this "finding" is total bs and more evidence that the jews want to hold on to their insane butchering traditions.
2003-10-10 23:08 | User Profile
All men who do not have sexual intercourse with HIV-positive females and don't use intravenous drugs have a zero chance of contracting HIV, regardless of whether their foreskin is removed or not.
2003-10-11 02:01 | User Profile
This just in....
Married men of all anatomical types in faithful marriages have zero HIV risk.
Scientific community stunned! Film at 11
2003-10-11 02:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]I know that Perun is fond of the phrase 'foreskins for land', so I'll repeat it here.
I'm fond of it? Excuse me but you're the one who kept repeating it so much that even Tex had to get on your case about it. I simply said to Friederich Braun that he didn't complain about you constantly repeating the foreskin comment, yet complained about me repeating the quote of Hitler's policies based on Talmudic teachings. You're mistakening me for Paleoleftist, who was the main person you debated the issue of "foreskins for land" stuff with.
2003-10-11 02:18 | User Profile
There shouldn't even be a thread on this topic, it's so much bs.
Africans have an astronomical rate of HIV infection because of many factors. One of the main factors is the penchant African men have for 'dry sex'. Especially in E. and Southern Africa. The women help out by indulding in several unhealthy practices to make sure they are dry, or they end up just getting raped, another African pastime, which can also help assure dryness. [url]http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/1999/12/10/drysex/[/url]
The focus on anal sex by Africans is another element. They seem to be obsessed by it. Can't talk about it in public though. Wouldn't be proper. It might explain the actions by groups of black prisoners throughout the American penal system. These savages will screw anything, including a hole bored in a concrete wall. You can find mention of this all over the internet, so I'm not going to load this post up with links. One is enough. Even if salon.com did 'pretty it up' a bit.
Wintermute is correct in mentioning that one reason jews worked to have circumcision implemented so heavily in the US was their thinking it may help them blend into the population. Back in the day, one way to find the jew was to have the fellow in question drop his pants. If he was a helmet instead of an anteater, he was in trouble.
2003-10-11 16:55 | User Profile
Correction for wintermute: circumsicion is practiced on a wide scale only by muslims, zhids and Americans. Vhat a company!
In Russia, there has never been any talk of penile cancer, and I haven't known anyone with that problem in my more than two decades of living there. All that, despite the absense of sex and hygiene education in school at that time, and parents generally reluctant to talk about any genitalia-related topic to their children (no wash-your-penis-head-daily talk).
The whole advocation of circumsicion is totally bogus.
2003-10-23 15:05 | User Profile
There was also a study that circumcision produces a lifetime of psychological problems including depression, anger, and irritability.
A case hereinbelow is also of interest:
[QUOTE]North Dakota District Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment by defendants in the Flatt v. Kantak circumcision case, and decided it will proceed to trial on February 3, 2003. The precedent setting decision confirms that a baby who is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.'[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.rense.com/general27/hah.htm[/url]
2004-01-05 04:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Roy Batty]There shouldn't even be a thread on this topic, it's so much bs.
Africans have an astronomical rate of HIV infection because of many factors. One of the main factors is the penchant African men have for 'dry sex'. Especially in E. and Southern Africa. The women help out by indulding in several unhealthy practices to make sure they are dry, or they end up just getting raped, another African pastime, which can also help assure dryness. [url]http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/1999/12/10/drysex/[/url]
The focus on anal sex by Africans is another element. They seem to be obsessed by it. Can't talk about it in public though. Wouldn't be proper. It might explain the actions by groups of black prisoners throughout the American penal system. These savages will screw anything, including a hole bored in a concrete wall. You can find mention of this all over the internet, so I'm not going to load this post up with links. One is enough. Even if salon.com did 'pretty it up' a bit.
Wintermute is correct in mentioning that one reason jews worked to have circumcision implemented so heavily in the US was their thinking it may help them blend into the population. Back in the day, one way to find the jew was to have the fellow in question drop his pants. If he was a helmet instead of an anteater, he was in trouble.[/QUOTE]
The point about having useful discussions about any topic is that 2 important criteria must be met: 1)facts must be empirically certifiable and 2)sound arguments are made for the purpose of intellectual illumination when certified facts are strung together logically and consistently.
On AIDS in Africa, sober analysts have pointed out that the huge numbers put out by the dominant media(some would say Jewish owned and controlled) are grossly exaggerated. Could it be that there are hidden interests involved in the perpetuation of this propaganda now going for 15 years.
But consider the following which raises suspicion about the 15 year propaganda about AIDS in Africa
1)Homosexuality and its accompanying anal sex is very taboo in Africa. In fact the word for homosexuality does not exist in any precolonial African language. No words at all for sodomy, buggery, pederasty, faggotry, pedophilia, etc. exists in any of those languages.
2)On a per capita basis Africa is the most circumcised continent.
3)What's the difference between dry sex(whatever that is) and wet sex?
4)The 3 most prominent researchers and media men in AIDS are Jews:
Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci are Jews. Lawrence Altman who disseminates their findings(and I suspect that the CDC is also involved too) via the NY Times is also Jewish. So what gives? Money? An inhouse network of researchers who need to keep the research money flowing in?
5)In fact, according to the research done by UNAIDS(for whatever it's worth) Africa conforms the least to the the 3 major risk factors for AIDS. They are 1)male anal sex--practiced mainly by homosexuals and bisexuals, 2)IV drug use with needle exchage, and 3)easy travel.
6)Any epidemic or pandemic follows a standard etiology, especially if the morbidity rate is high, as is the case with HIV and AIDS. This explains the hysteria about providing life-extending drugs to those affected. There is a constant climb in the infection rate then a leveling off(as people die off) then a decline. It happens with seasonal epidemics like the flu. So how can one have a pandemic that lasts as long as 15 years w ith no leveling off?
7)If AIDS affects blacks differently from the way it affects whites then explain why the AIDS rate in Brazil is less than 1% and the AIDS rate in Jamaica(with all those tourists, poverty, crime, etc. as is reported) is 20,000(claimed) in a population of 2.7 million people. 93% of the population of Jamaica have no non-African ancestry.
8)AIDS decimated the American skating athletic community and thousands in the American homosexual community, so if blacks are more prone to AIDS than whites the why hasn't it decimated the ranks of the hundreds of African long distance runners and professional soccer players who are all high-profile individuals? Again, there are about 600 high profile blacks in the American sports of football, basketball and baseball. So why haven't the ranks of these athletes who are viewed as undisciplined by the general public not been depleted by AIDS?
9)There is money to be made by peddling AIDS drugs(poisonous?) in Africa, also condoms and other family planning paraphernalia. After all, the AIDS predictions did not pan out in America and Europe. The homosexual community wants research on AIDS to continue unabated for that elusive vaccine so that anal homsoexuality could be normalised. They have friends in high places, especially the media so the propaganda continues.
2004-01-05 15:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Homosexuality and its accompanying anal sex is very taboo in Africa. In fact the word for homosexuality does not exist in any precolonial African language. No words at all for sodomy, buggery, pederasty, faggotry, pedophilia, etc. exists in any of those languages. [/QUOTE]
You've studied all those thousands of languages? Or are you just passing on something you've heard? Black sexual behavior varies hugely from one area to the other. The Tswanas we had hated homosexuals with a passion, but the Colourds tolerated it. We had to take one gay acting young Colourd man and seperated him from the Blacks during one harvest season. But as far as man woman sex, they think that wet dreams lead to AIDS and other sicknesses, so they get it with whatever girl is willing, and there's usually a several around that will prostitute themselves. Now this could be totally different from another tribe.
We had our male kids circumcised on the eighth day for the same reason that we don't eat road-kill or marry our sisters. God isn't arbitrary. Why would He order His people to do something bad for them? Our neighbors were babysitting some of our kids once, and the lady mentioned with was easier to clean our kids than hers. She had a boy with frequent infections, and after seeing ours, she had hers circumcised and the kid stopped getting infections.
2004-01-05 17:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Our neighbors were babysitting some of our kids once, and the lady mentioned with was easier to clean our kids than hers. She had a boy with frequent infections, and after seeing ours, she had hers circumcised and the kid stopped getting infections.[/QUOTE]
Many parents feel that it is necessary to pull back the foreskin of a baby to clean the penis. This is a big mistake. The foreskin will retract naturally as the boy ages. If you pull it back when they are babies, you will tear tissues which will indeed become infected.
[QUOTE]God isn't arbitrary. Why would He order His people to do something bad for them?[/QUOTE]
Why would He produce baby boys that need to be altered after they are born?
Dan
2004-01-05 23:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Why would He produce baby boys that need to be altered after they are born? [/QUOTE]
Why would he say not to have sex with your wife when she's on her period? Or not have sex with a pig? Or not to steal from those who can't defend themselves, after all, you are able.
You can't answer a question like yours without reference to the Bible. You either believe it or you don't. I was answering from a Christian perspective.
2004-01-05 23:32 | User Profile
You are emulating zhids in mutilating penises of the newborns. Christian perspective, my ass. For every freak complaining about infections after jerking off their young uns foreskin, there are many more normal people who see this barbarity for what it is.
2004-01-06 00:23 | User Profile
Let's please don't get sidetracked on the circumcision issue, which is best left for the sex chats and medical boards.
If parents want to have their sons circumcised, it is their choice as parents. If parents don't want to have their sons circumcised, that is also their choice. So be it. End of story.
2004-01-06 14:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE]If parents want to have their sons circumcised, it is their choice as parents. If parents don't want to have their sons circumcised, that is also their choice. So be it. End of story.[/QUOTE]
Ageed.
However, Oliver raises an interesting point. If adherence to all the Mosaic law covenant of some 600 or so laws is binding for Christians, does he also sacrifice the best of his flock on an altar of fire? Does he partake in the grain offerings as he should? Does he gather for the Festival of Booths? Does he refrain from travelling more than 1000 cubits from his home on the Sabbath?
I could go on, but the point is that Christians are not Jews.
Dan
2004-01-06 14:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Dan B]Ageed.
However, Oliver raises an interesting point. If adherence to all the Mosaic law covenant of some 600 or so laws is binding for Christians, does he also sacrifice the best of his flock on an altar of fire? Does he partake in the grain offerings as he should? Does he gather for the Festival of Booths? Does he refrain from travelling more than 1000 cubits from his home on the Sabbath?
I could go on, but the point is that Christians are not Jews.
Dan[/QUOTE]
That was not your argument. Your argument was why did God create something that had to be changed or modified. I will gladly discuss the problem of Biblical law and it's modern application with you, but first please concede that it is a seperate, although related topic.
2004-01-06 17:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Your argument was why did God create something that had to be changed or modified.[/QUOTE]
Not just something. A human infant boy.
[QUOTE]but first please concede that it is a seperate, although related topic.[/QUOTE]
I will concede that it is a separate but very closely related topic.
Do you feel that Christians are bound by the Mosaic law? How about the 10 commandments? Where does the law of Christ begin and the Mosaic law end for a Christian today?
Dan
2004-01-06 18:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Quote: Your argument was why did God create something that had to be changed or modified.
Not just something. A human infant boy.[/QUOTE]
Like Christ, who was circumcised. Was this bad, good or indifferent?
[QUOTE]Do you feel that Christians are bound by the Mosaic law? How about the 10 commandments? Where does the law of Christ begin and the Mosaic law end for a Christian today? [/QUOTE]
A fair and difficult question. After years of study, I'm driven to a simple test. How is the specific law fulfilled in Christ? This answers you example of sacrificing animals. It's done with, as Christ was the perfect sacrifice. Take tithing, though. I still maintain you should give your ten percent to the church, because the incarnation and passion and resurection doen't change the application or fulfill any symbolism that would cancel it.
2004-01-07 04:33 | User Profile
Iââ¬â¢ll assume anubis is NOT a doctor, and will address just a few point that I can answer. Iââ¬â¢m not a doctor, but am widely read (medically), and have some (emergency) medical training.
[QUOTE] The point about having useful discussions about any topic is that 2 important criteria must be met: 1)facts must be empirically certifiable and 2)sound arguments are made for the purpose of intellectual illumination when certified facts are strung together logically and consistently. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] 1)Homosexuality and its accompanying anal sex is very taboo in Africa. In fact the word for homosexuality does not exist in any precolonial African language. No words at all for sodomy, buggery, pederasty, faggotry, pedophilia, etc. exists in any of those languages.[/QUOTE] Among africans/blacks, transmission of the AIDS virus seems (statistically) MUCH more tranmissible than it is in whites or asians. MOST black American tranmission is hetero (or drug related), not homosexually transmitted.
You must not be aware of the ââ¬Ëdifficultyââ¬â¢ being faced in (american medical) AIDS research right now ââ¬â where one of the new drugs has a seemingly 80% effectiveness rate in BLACKS, but is statistically useless on whites. WHAT WILL THEY DO?! Admit itââ¬â¢s genetic/racial and try to help more blacks, or be politically correct and let them die (guess which way Iââ¬â¢d vote?!)
You may also be unaware that the presence of OTHER STDs massively increases the transmission of AIDS, and the incidence of STDS in the black community massively outpaces that in any other race.
[QUOTE] 3)What's the difference between dry sex(whatever that is) and wet sex?[/QUOTE] Dry sex leads to much much more tissue damage, tears in the membranes and thus easier (much MUCH) easier transmission of the virus. African prostitutes (and some other africanwomen, as I understand) use astringents, and even such weird things as ground GLASS to ââ¬Ådry upââ¬Â their ââ¬Åtissuesââ¬Â to create that dry, grinding, tearing sex that black african men so prize (Hmmm, is there any link to the black african predilection for rape? Donââ¬â¢t know, but the concept bears consideration...) Wet sex means the womanââ¬â¢s tissues are not so damaged and tranmission is less likely. Since monogamy is not so highly prized in africa, thereââ¬â¢s a LOT of transmission goinââ¬â¢ on!
[QUOTE] 4) The 3 most prominent researchers and media men in AIDS are Jews:[/QUOTE] They are lab guys ââ¬â they donââ¬â¢t count up cases in africa!
[QUOTE] 5)In fact, according to the research done by UNAIDS(for whatever it's worth) Africa conforms the least to the the 3 major risk factors for AIDS. They are 1)male anal sex--practiced mainly by homosexuals and bisexuals, 2)IV drug use with needle exchage, and 3)easy travel. [/QUOTE] The main transmission route to african WOMEN is their husbands ââ¬â who are often away working and using local prostitutes, and bringing the disease BACK to their wives and later-born-children.
[QUOTE] 6)Any epidemic or pandemic follows a standard etiology, especially if the morbidity rate is high, as is the case with HIV and AIDS. This explains the hysteria about providing life-extending drugs to those affected. There is a constant climb in the infection rate then a leveling off(as people die off) then a decline. It happens with seasonal epidemics like the flu. So how can one have a pandemic that lasts as long as 15 years w ith no leveling off? [/QUOTE] This model applies only to a quickly contagious, quickly killing disease/pathology. Flu (for example) either kills in the same 14-day or so period, or not at all. AIDS takes YEARS to develop. Any leveling off will only occur if AIDS becomes virulent enough to kill off its infected BEFORE they can pass it on.
The morbidity rate is high (or rather WAS high) in the beginning, now it has become essentially chronic ââ¬â WAY too many folks with the disease are living for many years, and some are intentionally spreading it, some are unintentionally spreading it, and some donââ¬â¢t know they have it. There is only a leveling off if the disease is killing off possible transmitters BEFORE they can spread it. AIDS does not do that.
[QUOTE] 7)If AIDS affects blacks differently from the way it affects whites then explain why the AIDS rate in Brazil is less than 1% and the AIDS rate in Jamaica(with all those tourists, poverty, crime, etc. as is reported) is 20,000(claimed) in a population of 2.7 million people. 93% of the population of Jamaica have no non-African ancestry.[/QUOTE] And I suppose you believed China when they said they had not a single homosexual, and not a single case of AIDS for the last 10 years? Or even when they said SARS was contained the first time? Oh, and Cuba has no AIDS either, just ask em!
[QUOTE] 8)AIDS decimated the American skating athletic community and thousands in the American homosexual community, so if blacks are more prone to AIDS than whites the why hasn't it decimated the ranks of the hundreds of African long distance runners and professional soccer players who are all high-profile individuals? Again, there are about 600 high profile blacks in the American sports of football, basketball and baseball. So why haven't the ranks of these athletes who are viewed as undisciplined by the general public not been depleted by AIDS? [/QUOTE] ââ¬ÅAmerican skating athletic communityââ¬Â -- thatââ¬â¢d be mostly gay guys? No blacks in that community, but lots of gays. Lots of ââ¬Ådry sexââ¬Â(lacerated tissues, high transmission rates) in the american anal sex club too! Do long distance runners get groupies? Are there high profile soccer players? The only one I know of is Pele. Do soccer players get groupies?
Consider also: Are the black athletes mostly getting black groupies or white ones? My impression is it (stupid!) white girls who are racking up the football and baseball stars, not black girls! (I could be entirely out of touch with that ââ¬â I donââ¬â¢t follow sports ââ¬â just see stuff on jewtv).
[QUOTE] 9)There is money to be made by peddling AIDS drugs(poisonous?) in Africa, also condoms and other family planning paraphernalia. After all, the AIDS predictions did not pan out in America and Europe. The homosexual community wants research on AIDS to continue unabated for that elusive vaccine so that anal homsoexuality could be normalised. They have friends in high places, especially the media so the propaganda continues.[/QUOTE] There are HUGE numbers of dead africans from AIDS. I consider this all to the good, but not if our white society is going to try to bankrupt ourselves ââ¬Åhelpingââ¬Â the survivors.
AIDS predictions did not pan out in America and Europe because those areas are still fortunately mainly WHITE! The P.C. police were trying to make AIDS an equal opportunity infection, but itââ¬â¢s not. (Would I be surprised to learn AIDS is a govt-created plague to wipe out blacks? Yeah: the govt is not so wise and dedicated to the protection of whites!) The education efforts were carefully planned to make it SEEM whites were at as high risk, but theyââ¬â¢re not. Just as they tried to make it seem as if heteros could and would get decimated as the homos were ââ¬â but theyââ¬â¢re not.
2004-01-07 14:29 | User Profile
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the response. You seem to have given this a lot of thought over the years. What do you think about the issue of circumcision as discussed by the first century disciples in Jerusalem? (I wish I could remember where in the NT this account is recorded; although I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.) This issue became a hot debate between the Jewish and Gentile converts in the first century.
Dan
2004-01-07 15:37 | User Profile
Your memory serves you correctly, Dan.
The question was (in Acts) whether or not Gentiles were required to keep the law, and the answer makes it even more confusing, because while it's easy for us to understand why they forbad fornication, why did they forbid eating things offered to idols, when Paul later tells us it is fine? And to throw in a monkey wrench, why abstain from eating blood, when Christian countries even today, and for centuries, have eaten things like blood sausage?
It's a very difficult subject, far above my intellect, but I maintain that the simple rule of thumb that I gave should prove beneficial. That is, ask yourself how the particular law was fulfilled in Christ. I personally would not eat blood, and to be honest I don't eat unclean meat (unless it's offered me, then I generally accept because that too is a command, or at least that's how I read it). But I do not make spiritual judgements upon those who do eat these things. I feel I benefit from following these laws physically, but not spiritually. You see where I'm going with circumcision; that it does no spiritual good, but there are physical benefits.
I think it has to do with the "evolution" or more properly sanctification of people, and clearly what Paul teaches is true, that something may be a sin for you, but not for me, and visa-versa.
There is great temptation to feel that you are better than someone else spiritually for conforming to God's Law, but we are constantly reminded in Scriptures that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and that salvation is by faith, and even that faith is by God's doing us a favor, and it is totally unearned and unobtainable on our part.
2004-01-07 17:37 | User Profile
I suppose there will always be "gray" areas that are best left to a person's conscience. For example, In Leviticus chapter 18 (I think) the jews were commanded not to shave off their beards, or sidelocks. I can't imagine how these laws were fulfilled in Christ. To me, there also doesn't seem to be any physical benefit to maintaining a beard as opposed to shaving it off. So would we be bound by this law to have a beard (viewing strictly the spiritual aspect of it)?
In my opinion the law of Christ, namely to love God with your whole being, and love your neighbour as yourself should over-ride the many Mosaic laws. I believe Christ himself made a statement to that regard when he stated that in these commandments the law was fulfilled. Also I believe that Galatians chapter 5 speaks extensively on the "freedom" Christians experience, as opposed to the burden of the Mosaic law.
(If my scripture references are off base, please forgive me. Although I have read the Bible from cover to cover a couple of times, I haven't cracked it open for some time.)
Dan
2004-01-07 18:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=anubis]1)Homosexuality and its accompanying anal sex is very taboo in Africa. In fact the word for homosexuality does not exist in any precolonial African language. No words at all for sodomy, buggery, pederasty, faggotry, pedophilia, etc. exists in any of those languages.
You remind me of an American Indian chief I heard on TV who insisted that Indians were a very peaceful people with no word for war, warriors, etc. Ha! Indians were a very violent people who kept their numbers down by war.
Blacks, as with Indians, didn't have written languages before whites taught them to write. As such, it's pretty easy to insist that they didn't have words for this or that. Their absolute lack of history makes anything to the contrary difficult to prove.
It's beyond credibility to believe that blacks didn't have words for various perverted sexual practices, in spite of abysmally small vocabularies among some tribes.
2)On a per capita basis Africa is the most circumcised continent.
I would expect the most circumcised continent to be Europe or North America.
3)What's the difference between dry sex(whatever that is) and wet sex?
I don't know. Dry sex must hurt, a lot. I don't find it credible that it would be at all wide spread.
4)The 3 most prominent researchers and media men in AIDS are Jews:
I don't know. But, so what?
5)In fact, according to the research done by UNAIDS(for whatever it's worth) Africa conforms the least to the the 3 major risk factors for AIDS. They are 1)male anal sex--practiced mainly by homosexuals and bisexuals, 2)IV drug use with needle exchage, and 3)easy travel.
Yes. So?
6)Any epidemic or pandemic follows a standard etiology, especially if the morbidity rate is high, as is the case with HIV and AIDS. This explains the hysteria about providing life-extending drugs to those affected. There is a constant climb in the infection rate then a leveling off(as people die off) then a decline. It happens with seasonal epidemics like the flu. So how can one have a pandemic that lasts as long as 15 years w ith no leveling off?
Actually, had thought it leveled off, even if there is the occaional increase. Besides, AIDS is a slow disease that can take many years to kill a person, especially know that AIDS drugs can prolong the disease indefinitely. It's not like the flu that lasts only a few days.
7)If AIDS affects blacks differently from the way it affects whites then explain why the AIDS rate in Brazil is less than 1% and the AIDS rate in Jamaica(with all those tourists, poverty, crime, etc. as is reported) is 20,000(claimed) in a population of 2.7 million people. 93% of the population of Jamaica have no non-African ancestry.
Whites get AIDS the same ways blacks do. #1) Male homosexual behavior. #2) IV-drug sharing #3) The women who have sex with homosexual men or IV-drug users.
I have yet to see anyone explain how blacks get infected differently. AIDS is more common among blacks, but I don't think that's because blacks get AIDS differently, but because destructive behavior is more common among blacks.
8)AIDS decimated the American skating athletic community and thousands in the American homosexual community, so if blacks are more prone to AIDS than whites the why hasn't it decimated the ranks of the hundreds of African long distance runners and professional soccer players who are all high-profile individuals?
I don't know anything about AIDS and African long-distance runners. Even in Africa, most people don't have AIDS. There are several reasons why African long-distance runners might have lower AIDS rates than the average African (i.g. they're younger and have a healthier lifestyle).
9)There is money to be made by peddling AIDS drugs(poisonous?) in Africa, also condoms and other family planning paraphernalia.
I don't know. Africa gets AIDS drugs dirt cheap, and they have been for many years. The cash cow for the drug companies are American and European tax payers.
After all, the AIDS predictions did not pan out in America and Europe. The homosexual community wants research on AIDS to continue unabated for that elusive vaccine so that anal homsoexuality could be normalised. They have friends in high places, especially the media so the propaganda continues.[/QUOTE]
Now, here is something I totally agree with. There was no reason to think AIDS would ever explode in the heterosexual community, other than the blatant lie that "AIDS doesn't discriminate." Of all the AIDS education I've had all through school, the teachers (or at least the course material) always focused on the idea that AIDS doesn't discriminate. It's no wonder the public doesn't hold the male homosexual community accountable for the "AIDS crises." AIDS has been the most funded disease (even beating hard-to-avoid top killers like cancer and heart disease) in the research department, all to serve destructive homosexuals.
2004-01-07 23:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I suppose there will always be "gray" areas that are best left to a person's conscience. For example, In Leviticus chapter 18 (I think) the jews were commanded not to shave off their beards, or sidelocks. I can't imagine how these laws were fulfilled in Christ. To me, there also doesn't seem to be any physical benefit to maintaining a beard as opposed to shaving it off. So would we be bound by this law to have a beard (viewing strictly the spiritual aspect of it)?[/QUOTE]
I think your point of individual conscience is very important. I have a beard, but I would say the spiritual aspect of it is non existant, as I tried to point out in my last post. There may be other benefits which are perhaps esoteric in terms of this discussion or perhaps they are not.
Let me give a person example though. There are laws which proscribe when couples can resume sex after the birth of a child. It is a different number of days for girls and boys. We followed those laws, and my wife didn't get pregnant for an average of 18 months between kids, even though we never used birth control. I have heard that breast feeding is to an extent a natural birth control, but it doesn't kick in until the child starts taking a certain amount of milk.
I make no claims, or do I judge, but for us it worked out nicely. Just food for thought. The same could be said for the Biblical rules of debt, and how they may benefit one financially, but not necessarily spiritually.
But again, this is a difficult subject and one I don't feel comfortable with as far as going too far into details, as I'm not qualified.
Best
2004-01-08 14:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]as I'm not qualified[/QUOTE]
Neither am I.
Dan
2004-01-08 18:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]
I would expect the most circumcised continent to be Europe or North America.
[/QUOTE]
Jews, Muslims and white American males are the only people who get routinely circumcized. In Europe, if you discount their muslim population, no such thing.
2004-01-11 20:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JohnHoward]Infant male genital mutilation (circumcision) is child abuse. Those who practice this barbaric custom upon helpless babies should be punished. When you're 18 years old and still want to have part of your crank sliced off, then so be it!
By the logic of the "survey" cited in the first post, why not advocate having the entire penis removed? Not only would that solve the HIV problem in India, but also cut down on rape and overpopulation too. Heck, using that logic, we could amputate our trigger finger and cut down on gun crime!
Methinks this is more YHWH ideology posing as science.[/QUOTE]
Another lightweight who probably doesn't cut his hair or wipe his butt.