posted on June 6, 2001 12:08:25 AM new
Of course. You'd be surprised how many guys think they can't get AIDS from a woman and will have sex without a condom if she's on the pill. It's a mistake to project your own level of awareness and education onto others.
posted on June 6, 2001 12:10:38 AM newAre you implying that the groups you've named have higher promiscurity rates, or because they are black, seem pre-disposed to catching the disease?
I don't watch tv at all so I have no clue as to the Springer comment.
The infomation I stated is from what I have read in the newspaper and seen on the news.
My point was:
1. STD: AIDS & sexually transmited diseases highest in same group=sexually transmitted
2. Babies born to unwed mothers=sexually transmited in promiscous sex, out of monogamous relationships/marriage. Mothers in this same group oft have children by multiple fathers. (That is an obvious fact that I witness everyday. I don't need a "source".)
3. Dependance on public assistance=you are footing the bill for the irresponsible sexual acts of others. If you are ok with that, good for you.
Race was a complete non-issue, simply a statistical fact.
T
posted on June 6, 2001 12:13:12 AM new"Do you really believe that there exists any American over 12 who has not been educated with regards to the common transmission mechanisms of HIV?"
Yes. I believe there are LOTS of children and adults, in the U.S., that don't understand that this is a DEADLY virus.
"Access to presidential level medical care won't stop transmission of the disease. Once one has it, access to similar medical care won't get rid of it."
Absolutely true. But I'm talking about the cost of prevention for poor people.....comdoms, new needles, bleach, etc. Who pays for this on an ongoing basis for them so they don't get AIDS?
posted on June 6, 2001 12:15:04 AM newDo you really believe that there exists any American over 12 who has not been educated with regards to the common transmission mechanisms of HIV?
Yes, absolutely. But some people also don't care because social custom/acceptance, and for others selfish indulgence, overrides the warnings.
T
posted on June 6, 2001 12:15:50 AM new
It is true that having some threat explained, time and time again, makes little impression on some people. Some very striking examples involve young males and their analysis of threats involving sex.
What's less clear is that "more education" has much to do with addressing this problem. What's real clear is that "lack of education" has not caused it.
posted on June 6, 2001 12:33:51 AM new
To put it another way:
Most all teens have been educated in the dangers of drug abuse. Yet I go to the store and car loads of low income (race undefined) youths are sitting in a car with blasting music singing "I wanna be your neighborhood DRUG DEALER!" This isn't ignorance of the facts. This is a social problem.
Same way with AIDS, STD, children born out of wedlock, program dependance, etc.
When my first child was born (80's), she was severely premature. As a result, I was placed on WIC (a food suppliment program for infants and mothers) by default. I did go and pick up cereal, formula, etc. When she reached the age limit that I was to be discontinued, a worker in the warehouse (not a program counselor AT ALL, mind you) called me in the office for a "meeting" when I went for a pick up. He stated to me that I was to be discontinued and that if I wanted to continue the program I needed to be pregnant by X date or my eligability would lapse. Excuse me?!
This is a social problem. It's all tied together. It is the backlash from low income assistance programs in the past. Why do low income blacks oft not marry but pro-create? Partly because past generations taught them that marriage (two head households) means cutting off of funds...and it became a way of life. Males vanished from the fmaily unit and from financial responsibility and female households received support. I AM seeing more and more who are actually living together and are financially responsible in recent years...but still most often out of wedlock.
This is not ALWAYS true. But it is very common.
When I have to fill out state paperwork for whatever reason, it is ALL geared specifically toward unwed mothers. Not even a BLANK for information about a father.
T
~clarification
[ edited by jt on Jun 6, 2001 12:37 AM ]
posted on June 6, 2001 05:19:58 AM new
Morning, roofguy. This page discusses how to reduce maternal to infant transmission, one of the factors increasing the resevoir of infected people.
Some problems with just this one factor:
1. Cost
2. Availability
3. Mandatory HIV testing of all pregnant women
4. Mandatory treatment of all HIV+ pregnant women
5. Lag time between time of new infection and time the new infection shows up in testing.
posted on June 6, 2001 05:43:54 AM new
Just a random thought here, not to be taken as anything unless you want to -
AIDS used to have a window of 6 years, then it was 7, then 8, now it's 20 or so. Think back, all you baby boomers.
Did you marry a virgin? (male or female) Chances are if you didn't get married right out of high school, you didn't marry one. So everytime you have sex with your partner of 20 or 30 years, you're having sex with everyone he/she ever had sex with. Pretty scary scenerio isn't it? He/she is faithful and true to you, always has been, but the past tells a story.
As far as statistics and heart disease being related to fried and fatty foods, bzzzzzzzzzzz, wrong. It's not always the case. I don't eat fried or fatty foods and have it. It's hereditary.
AIDS is hereditary, can be transmitted by any body fluid, and now I hear they think it's some kind of cancer!
Anyway, as I said, random thoughts from a random mind.
Did you know that cancer is felt to be a virus? You know they say there is no cure for a virus, so if AIDS is now a virus, you fill in the blanks.
Oh and add to your list Cary Grant. He died of a stroke in 1986, but in the early 70's he was hospitalized with what they said (unofficially - this is nurses and dcotors talking) was AIDS. I know this because he was in a local hospital in NY at the time. He was very ill. He had 5 wives, lived with Randolph Scott and was said to be homosexual or bisexual and a drug user. No one is immune to this! It's been around a long long time folks and not getting any better.
posted on June 6, 2001 07:51:06 AM new"Some very striking examples involve young males and their analysis of threats involving sex."
Consider stupid, highly risky behavior by young males in pursuit of sex. Not so rare. It never has been rare. It's a tendency selected for by genetics.
We would like to educate the kids, so as to prevent tragedy, to assert intelligence above primal compulsion. It works, up to a point. Beyond that point, some young people simply ignore the education.
It is sometimes suggested that more education is the answer to what we should do differently, given the current dismal results. More education is not the answer. While we should maintain the agressive education campaign now in place, more education is unlikely to make much difference. We're already educating everyone who is even mildly receptive to the message.
posted on June 6, 2001 08:15:47 AM new
Snowyegret, Excellent Links! They illustrate so well that this is a global problem and that we can't limit our concern about aids to the United States alone.
Bush's alma mater, Yale urged him recently to make the United States a world leader in building a Global fund for aids but I don't think that he has made that a priority. Africa needs immediate help with drugs, birth control and funds to help fight the poverty that results in escalation of the disease there and subsequently all over the world.
posted on June 6, 2001 09:12:57 AM new
Snowyegret, maternal transmission to newborn is tragic, and illustrates the fact that some victims are utterly blameless.
However, it is not an important mechanism in the spread of HIV.
posted on June 6, 2001 09:41:40 AM new
"Consider stupid, highly risky behavior by young males in pursuit of sex. Not so rare. It never has been rare. It's a tendency selected for by genetics."
Reproductive sucess.
Decreasing transmission to newborns does affect the resevoir, especially as the lifespan of HIV+ people expands. As these babies grow to reproductive age, whammo.
posted on June 6, 2001 10:14:35 AM new
Thanks (again!) for the links snowy!
sadie999 stated - "Show the drug companies the money, and they'll have a vaccine on the market in five years."
Do you know how much profit these drug companies make each year? It would make your eyes pop out. Sure, they spend billions of YOUR dollars on research, but what have they come up with? That's the sad thing sadie, they HAVE the funds. They have more than enough funds.
I would also like to hear how much the Cancer Society rakes in everyday and how much progession has been made towards finding a cure. It's laughable IMO, and the joke is that people are dying while this takes place.
And Terri, I agree with you on so many points, but having sex out of wedlock, is a reality that I doubt will ever change, and unfortunately, everyone has to pay for everyone else's irresponsiblity in this life. Poor people have babies because they can't afford birth control. How they think they can afford to look after a child is beyond me too, but this is what's happening. And you're right - it's all connected, isn't it?
posted on June 6, 2001 10:44:03 AM newillustrates the fact that some victims are utterly blameless. ALL the victims of this disease are blameless. Nobody deserves to get AIDS. Unfortunately, it is still largely seen as a "gay" disease (although that is slowly changing), and to some people, that is an excuse to ascribe "blame".
posted on June 6, 2001 10:59:06 AM new
Well, of course no one deserves a disease. I think people mean that it's a disease that you can do something to protect yourself and in large part is caused by reckless behavior. But what can be said for AIDS and condoms can be said for heart attacks and french fries. To a lesser degree anyway.
posted on June 6, 2001 11:10:05 AM new
Need I restate my question? Did I ask for a conspiracy theory? No, I asked where it came from, what caused it to burst on the scene when and how it did. Did man not discover the green monkey until 25 years ago?
However, if you have a conspiracy theory that you would like to offer, feel free.
posted on June 6, 2001 11:12:51 AM new
Absolutely, Katy. The most salient remark made by anyone other than baduizm, who's remarks are all salient, before your arrival is:
"AIDS used to have a window of 6 years, then it was 7, then 8, now it's 20 or so. Think back, all you baby boomers.
Did you marry a virgin? (male or female) Chances are if you didn't get married right out of high school, you didn't marry one. So everytime you have sex with your partner of 20 or 30 years, you're having sex with everyone he/she ever had sex with. Pretty scary scenerio isn't it? He/she is faithful and true to you, always has been, but the past tells a story by mtnmama.
No one choses to contract AIDS, and no one is safe from contracting it. No amount of moralistic BS will alter the fact that the virus has infected the world populace and won't go away without aggressive world wide research and funding.
Plenty of bible thumping pure living hypocrites have contracted the virus, or have been carrying the virus for decades without any awareness that they have. There was no general awareness of the problem for over five years after the first exposure in this country and deaths were therefore not classified as being HIV caused. Instead they were other things more ready to hand. Later the other things were more acceptable and again the knowledge of the scope of the epidemic was hindered.
All of that time a simple momentary microscopic contact was continuing to infect the pure, the innocent, as well as the socially deviant.
Now the virus mutates as they all eventually do, and it isn't impossible, though it does seem unlikely that a day may come when exposure to the HIV virus may occur from something as innocuous as being in a room where someone is coughing. The simple fact is that the medical realm cannot predict it with a surety, and because of niggardly attitudes and limitations of funding research will remain unable to come up with a vaccine.
posted on June 6, 2001 12:01:05 PM new
krs, do you really believe there isn't enough money going into Aids and cancer research?? I can see where independants would be money strapped, but not the big drug companies, the Cancer Society, government funds, etc.
Remember awhile back when an independant research company discovered "Taxol"? A drug made from Yew tree bark to fight breast cancer? I doubt they had major funding, but still came up with something. The big players don't have the motivation, like another poster explained, but I do believe they have more than enough funding. JMO.
posted on June 6, 2001 12:15:52 PM new
The origin of HIV is not known for sure.
The most likely truth is that HIV has existed in primate mammals for thousands or tens of thousands of years.
The reason it seems very new is twofold.
1. The epidemic, which clearly IS new, both in its American form as well as it African form.
2. Our ability to identify the disease.
Most likely, people have been dying of AIDS for a very long time, but various factors kept the disease from spreading broadly. The deaths of individuals was generally accepted as due to some illness of unknown origin, but was seldom if ever imagined to be a sexually transmitted disease.
posted on June 6, 2001 04:32:16 PM new
Actually, they have been able to track the initial case in this country as well as the persons involved. It was a french flight attendant on a carrier which ran regular flights between new york, paris, and some place in africa. I've read the specific details but it was some time ago and don't remember it all, but it came here in 1980.
posted on June 6, 2001 04:45:05 PM new
I thought the guy frequented San Fransico, and I am not sterotyping Frisco, and amongst the gay community there?
I don't know. I hope no one has to do the frikking AIDS/HIV test. I had it done 3 times. And this was looooooong ago, when I found out the ONE guy I was with was sleeping with what amounted to a small city of women. I did it once, then went back 2 years later and had it done again, then had it done yet again, when the testing was better. Its not the test, its the waiting. And they make you come into the office for the results, whether positive or negative. That SUCKED.
and I thank God I do not have either. And this was just because of one person.
