Post: #1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl...ds-newsxml

A person infected with HIV will transmit the virus to their partner once in every 900 times they have unprotected sex, say scientists.


But then later on the article says


He also stated that while most of the findings can be generalised to other countries, the number of sexual acts needed to transmit the virus is likely specific to the African population studied.


Which kind of makes the whole entire article useless...

Any thoughts? I don't know if this is really higher than other studies, but I've seen that the rate for female to male transmission is less than half the rate of male to female transmission...

The scariest stat that they assert is this:


The new study also confirmed condoms are highly effective in preventing HIV infection, reducing the risk of transmission by 78 per cent.


That doesn't seem like much protection...I originally thought it was like 95+% effective.

Post: #2

If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Post: #3

HIV/AIDS is nothing for straight men to worry about no matter what part of the world there in outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Transmission rates for heterosexual oral and vaginal sex are very low, even more so for the male involved. Blood transfusions, childbirth, anal sex and this African custom where men dry out the woman's pussy to make it tighter (the name escapes me) have drastically higher transmission rates.

HIV/AIDS prevalence: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...Epidem.png

Numerous African countries have relatively lower infections.

Post: #4

(01-14-2012 09:23 AM)Alpha Wrote:  If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Aint that a racist comment? I find it really weird how white guys in the states make such comments about black people..all these studies that say that blacks are more likely to be infected by aids is bullshit.

Post: #5

(01-14-2012 10:27 AM)pitt Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 09:23 AM)Alpha Wrote:  If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Aint that a racist comment? I find it really weird how white guys in the states make such comments about black people..all these studies that say that blacks are more likely to be infected by aids is bullshit.

No it isn't racist. To say the studies are bullshit because you don't like the findings is bullshit. The truth is black people have a slightly higher chance of catching the disease and homosexual males have an astronomically higher chance of catching it.

It would be racist for me to say that you'll never do anything worthwhile with your life because you're black. It's not racist to say that studies have shown that blacks have a higher chance of catching HIV than whites.

By your reasoning it's also racist that only black people can get sickle cell - thus this must be bullshit, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Is it "reverse racist" to say that white people have a higher chance of getting head lice than blacks? No.

I'm genetically different from a black person, so it's reasonable to say that, on a genetic level, I'm predisposed to certain ailments that he is not and vice versa.

Get over the PC race hate thing, man. If you're a person, you're a person - the rest is just details. Besides, you should be wearing a condom anyway.

Post: #6

(01-14-2012 10:27 AM)pitt Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 09:23 AM)Alpha Wrote:  If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Aint that a racist comment? I find it really weird how white guys in the states make such comments about black people..all these studies that say that blacks are more likely to be infected by aids is bullshit.

It's not bullshit or racist when the data shows it's true.

Post: #7

(01-14-2012 10:27 AM)pitt Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 09:23 AM)Alpha Wrote:  If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Aint that a racist comment? I find it really weird how white guys in the states make such comments about black people..all these studies that say that blacks are more likely to be infected by aids is bullshit.

Ugh.

As stated; if you're white, heterosexual and rarely fuck strange, low class girls up the shitter - your chance of contracting HIV is ziltch. That is not to say you should ditch the condoms. There is a curse much worse and more debilitating to your life than AiDs out there: it is children!

Post: #8

(01-14-2012 12:41 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 10:27 AM)pitt Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 09:23 AM)Alpha Wrote:  If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Aint that a racist comment? I find it really weird how white guys in the states make such comments about black people..all these studies that say that blacks are more likely to be infected by aids is bullshit.

It's not bullshit or racist when the data shows it's true.

Data can be interpreted to support whatever kind of world view you have. Now, I am giving Alpha the benefit of the doubt that he did a typo(he meant African and not African American) and that he wasn’t simply trying to be slick or trolling. Either way putting Blacks in the same high risk category as butt fucking is ridiculous and incendiary. Also, Pdog is right, Even when talking about Sub Saharan Africans(PC word for Dark Africans) HIV rates aren't uniform across the region which doesn't make sense if Blacks were predisposed to getting the disease. Bottom line say no to raw dogging.

Quote:Get over the PC race hate thing, man. If you're a person, you're a person - the rest is just details.

LOL, This pattern repeats itself over and over in the forum. This is the anatomy of 95% of the threads that turn racial.

1. White guy(usually with low post #) says something reckless about Blacks.

2. He gets called out.

3. pandemonium.

4. White guy tries to take the high road and back pedals with a “Can’t we all get along” type of response. And wonders why “Blacks are so stuck on race?”

Post: #9

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-12/healt...=PM:HEALTH

I'm not saying it's fair, life isn't fair... but don't dispute the facts.

Post: #10

(01-14-2012 10:27 AM)pitt Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 09:23 AM)Alpha Wrote:  If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Aint that a racist comment? I find it really weird how white guys in the states make such comments about black people..all these studies that say that blacks are more likely to be infected by aids is bullshit.

No it isn't. I remember going to a presentation given by one of the leading experts in sexually transmitted diseases in the US (and an African American woman as well; in case you're thinking of pulling the "racism" card)

In terms of all STDs, including AIDs, black were SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be infected then whites. Hispanics were about in between.

In terms of infection percentage in the US, from highest to lowest, you're looking at:
1. IVDA and homosexuals (all races)
2. Blacks
3. Hispanics
4. Whites
5. Asians

Post: #11

(01-14-2012 12:41 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 10:27 AM)pitt Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 09:23 AM)Alpha Wrote:  If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Aint that a racist comment? I find it really weird how white guys in the states make such comments about black people..all these studies that say that blacks are more likely to be infected by aids is bullshit.

It's not bullshit or racist when the data shows it's true.

Exactly! how can a fact be 'racist'?

Post: #12

(01-14-2012 04:57 PM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 12:41 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 10:27 AM)pitt Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 09:23 AM)Alpha Wrote:  If you're not African American or Gay, the transmission rates are extremely low to begin with. Cutting your 0.5% chance of receiving a disease by 78% is significant.

Aint that a racist comment? I find it really weird how white guys in the states make such comments about black people..all these studies that say that blacks are more likely to be infected by aids is bullshit.

It's not bullshit or racist when the data shows it's true.

Data can be interpreted to support whatever kind of world view you have. Now, I am giving Alpha the benefit of the doubt that he did a typo(he meant African and not African American) and that he wasn’t simply trying to be slick or trolling. Either way putting Blacks in the same high risk category as butt fucking is ridiculous and incendiary. Also, Pdog is right, Even when talking about Sub Saharan Africans(PC word for Dark Africans) HIV rates aren't uniform across the region which doesn't make sense if Blacks were predisposed to getting the disease. Bottom line say no to raw dogging.

Quote:Get over the PC race hate thing, man. If you're a person, you're a person - the rest is just details.

LOL, This pattern repeats itself over and over in the forum. This is the anatomy of 95% of the threads that turn racial.

1. White guy(usually with low post #) says something reckless about Blacks.

2. He gets called out.

3. pandemonium.

4. White guy tries to take the high road and back pedals with a “Can’t we all get along” type of response. And wonders why “Blacks are so stuck on race?”

Quick! Add absolutely nothing to the conversation and simultaneously flame a guy you don't know in an attempt to start an argument - thereby making him look like the "stupid token white guy" and you the "anti-pc, don't give a shit bad boy".

1. I said absolutely nothing "reckless" about blacks.
2. I didn't get called out.
3. 10 posts over the course of a day, a majority of which agreeing with my point, hardly constitutes pandemonium.
4. I never back pedaled because I refuse to retract anything I've said so far.

Please avoid saying stupid shit like this next time.

Post: #13

The problem with those stats is they do not specify WHY the infection rate amongst African Americans is so high, which results in people making ignorant comments about being black meaning that you have a higher chance of contracting HIV.

There is nothing inherent in black men that makes us more susceptible to HIV.The reason for the higher HIV rate amongst blacks (and to a lesser extent, amongst hispanics) is simple. PRISON

(01-14-2012 05:18 PM)[email protected] Wrote:  In terms of infection percentage in the US, from highest to lowest, you're looking at:
1. IVDA and homosexuals (all races)
2. Blacks
3. Hispanics
4. Whites
5. Asians

Notice how the ranking of infection rates EXACTLY mirrors the ranking of incarceration rates.

I am absolutely shocked that some of the guys on this board did not know that incarceration (and lack of condom use when the ex-con is released from prison) is the biggest reason for the higher spread within the African-American community.

African American male population -> highest rate of prison incarceration
Prison -> much higher than normal instances of unprotected gay male sex
unprotected gay male sex -> highest risk sexual activity for contracting HIV

Add to that the EXTREMELY high number of IV drug user and homosexual male prostitutes (the two HIGHEST RISK demographics for HIV) in prison and it is EASY to see why the rates are so high. An additional factor leading to the spread amongst women is poor black women's greater willingness to have unprotected sex with their partners.

It is really that fucking simple.

True story: After rawdogging this hot, but crazy girl for a while, I finally came to my senses and broke up with her. Shortly their after, I got tested at a community clinic for free. Obviously the test came back negative. However, I was so paranoid about fucking that chick without a condom that that I was nervous as hell. I asked the lady who gave me the test and my results about what she has seen in terms of HIV infection. Now this woman deals with A LOT of folks who have been infected with HIV.

I asked her straight out, how many men had she see who tested positive that had not either done IV drugs OR had gay sex. She shocked me when she said that she had NEVER SEEN A CASE. Now, I am sure that there has probably been some straight, non-IV drug using males that have caught HIV, but the fact that she had never personally seen a single case, out of the hundreds of HIV+ people she dealt with was shocking.

Either way, I still don't rawdog chicks anymore.

Post: #14

Agree with JHoya there is certainly nothing inherent in blacks or any race for that matter that makes picking up HIV easier/more likely.

i.e. The transmission rate/risk of HIV acquisition from a positive woman PER ACT should be same among races. a white guy or brother banging a girl raw has the same risk

So the comment 'if you're not African american or gay don't worry' is wrong

That is different however than saying that the prevalence of HIV in the black community whatever is higher than white. That could certainly be the case for reasons explained already

Statistics regarding chance of transmission and reduction from condoms are always estimates.

Chance of HIV per act in a positive woman is 1 in many hundreds (estimate 1/200-1/1000 depends on many factors) Multiply that by the chance the girl you are with is positive (say 1/1000 if normal girl) and you can see why chances of getting this outside endemic areas i.e. subsaharan africa etc are incredibly low. That said anyone can win the lottery

As for the 78% transmission reduction from condom usage-bottom line is that you're perfectly fine if the latex condom didn't break. the 78% takes into account breakage, people who don't know how to use condoms, etc. Same reason birth control is never reported as 100% although it pretty much is

While I get Alpha's analogy with Sickle Cell, since you brought it up you should know you don't need to be black to get Sickle-not uncommon in mideast, south america and India basically anyplace malaria exists as it is a genetic advantage there.

Post: #15

(01-14-2012 07:04 PM)Alpha Wrote:  Quick! Add absolutely nothing to the conversation and simultaneously flame a guy you don't know in an attempt to start an argument - thereby making him look like the "stupid token white guy" and you the "anti-pc, don't give a shit bad boy".

1. I said absolutely nothing "reckless" about blacks.
2. I didn't get called out.
3. 10 posts over the course of a day, a majority of which agreeing with my point, hardly constitutes pandemonium.
4. I never back pedaled because I refuse to retract anything I've said so far.

Please avoid saying stupid shit like this next time.

Argument? Who says I want to go back and forth with you? I only debate people who are on my level, everybody else I teach. I see now that I went over your head. This is my last time addressing you, you are a waste of time.

Quote:The problem with those stats is they do not specify WHY the infection rate amongst African Americans is so high, which results in people making ignorant comments about being black meaning that you have a higher chance of contracting HIV.

There is nothing inherent in black men that makes us more susceptible to HIV.The reason for the higher HIV rate amongst blacks (and to a lesser extent, amongst hispanics) is simple. PRISON

(Today 07:18 PM)[email protected] Wrote: In terms of infection percentage in the US, from highest to lowest, you're looking at:
1. IVDA and homosexuals (all races)
2. Blacks
3. Hispanics
4. Whites
5. Asians


Notice how the ranking of infection rates EXACTLY mirrors the ranking of incarceration rates.

I am absolutely shocked that some of the guys on this board did not know that incarceration (and lack of condom use when the ex-con is released from prison) is the biggest reason for the higher spread within the African-American community.

African American male population -> highest rate of prison incarceration
Prison -> much higher than normal instances of unprotected gay male sex
unprotected gay male sex -> highest risk sexual activity for contracting HIV

Add to that the EXTREMELY high number of IV drug user and homosexual male prostitutes (the two HIGHEST RISK demographics for HIV) in prison and it is EASY to see why the rates are so high. An additional factor leading to the spread amongst women is poor black women's greater willingness to have unprotected sex with their partners.

It is really that fucking simple.

Why are you even bothering brah? leave these Wikipedia Scholars and Epidemiologists be. If he wants to believe he's going to be HIV and for that matter STD free as long as he doesn't fuck with Blacks. Let him. I just wish more people would use his same reasoning that way there would be more fine sistas available to me.

Post: #16

The statistics I've seen for female-to-male transmission during vaginal sex are usually about 1 in 500. For anal it's much higher since the mucosa of the rectum is thinner than the vaginal walls and tears much more easily. It's a very bad idea to raw-dog in the ass, especially considering that a girl who lets guys hit it raw in her ass is more likely to have HIV in the first place.

Post: #17

(01-14-2012 07:53 PM)joehoya Wrote:  The problem with those stats is they do not specify WHY the infection rate amongst African Americans is so high, which results in people making ignorant comments about being black meaning that you have a higher chance of contracting HIV.

There is nothing inherent in black men that makes us more susceptible to HIV.The reason for the higher HIV rate amongst blacks (and to a lesser extent, amongst hispanics) is simple. PRISON

Bingo.

You send the men to prison on bullshit, turn them out, then when they come back out of prison, not only are they rejected by society for being felons -- and legally have their constiutional rights stripped from them -- they also give diseases to heterosexual women, who then spread it around with other men, i.e. non-felons, and the cycle perpetuates itself.

Now the largest growing group of the prison population is young Black women.

Post: #18

Africans, no matter where you live, are at higher risk of catching HIV because of basic differences in genes. Whites, due to a resistance built up against the Black Plague and Smallpox, have higher levels of immunity against HIV. This, coupled with the immunity Africans built up to fight malaria has made them more susceptible to HIV due to the nature of the HIV virus. In fact, many Scandinavians are immune to certain strains of the virus completely. Africans are highly immune to malaria compared to whites, but that immunity lowers immunity against the HIV virus due to differences in blood proteins. Its the nature of the HIV virus.

Stop trying to drum this up as a social issue or racist misrepresentation of what is a fact. Its no ones opinion, its a fact. Im not even sure what the fuck is so offensive about all this? What the hell is everyone so offended about? Sure does highlight though how overly sensitive and downright ignorant some of you are at times though. The overreaction to what has been a statement of fact is pretty ridiculous.

Google is free chaps

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...121355.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Post: #19

^^ Interesting link regarding increased susceptibility HH. This is the first Ive heard of that. At least you are backing things up with some scientific explanations. Previous posts did not do that.

Post: #20

(01-15-2012 02:07 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...121355.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Harry, thanks for the information. It is interesting reading. I retract my statement about there being no genetic link of decreased resistance. Thanks for keeping everyone honest and informed.

Post: #21

There is no shame in this sort of research or finding either. If anything, it shows that higher rates of HIV infection in Africans has more to do with differences in immunity systems than it does social issues like promiscuity or drug use. The rates of infection would be far higher in whites and hispanics if they had the same immunity weakness with that particular virus. It also explains how the disease has spread so rapidly in Africa.

This sort of research is important. Those genetic differences could help lead to an eventual cure.

Post: #22

Nobody here has mentioned HIV subtypes. Knowledge of various subtypes in each part of the world is mandatory reading for the international playboy. A little reminder that HIV in NA, Africa and Asia is a little different. Common bro/forum science says that unless you are a homosexual/iv drug user, the chances of HIV infection for heterosexual sex is extremely slim. This might be true for America where the predominant HIV subtype is B, but not true for around the world.

Strands of HIV like subtype E which is much more easily transmitted by unprotected heterosexual sex exist in Asia
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Why_Do_...ailand.pdf

In a study, the probability of FEMALE TO MALE transmission for HIV in thailand per sexual contact is 0.056 out of 1. That's 5.6% or 1 in 18 . That's 50 times more likely than the general rate of 1 in 900 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668

So if you come to SEA to get your dick wet, don't even think about rawdogging that semi-pro you see in a bar. You've been warned.

(01-14-2012 10:02 AM)P Dog Wrote:  HIV/AIDS is nothing for straight men to worry about no matter what part of the world there in outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Transmission rates for heterosexual oral and vaginal sex are very low, even more so for the male involved.

Wrong.

Post: #23

(01-15-2012 08:01 AM)the_conductor Wrote:  Nobody here has mentioned HIV subtypes. Knowledge of various subtypes in each part of the world is mandatory reading for the international playboy. A little reminder that HIV in NA, Africa and Asia is a little different. Common bro/forum science says that unless you are a homosexual/iv drug user, the chances of HIV infection for heterosexual sex is extremely slim. This might be true for America where the predominant HIV subtype is B, but not true for around the world.

Strands of HIV like subtype E which is much more easily transmitted by unprotected heterosexual sex exist in Asia
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Why_Do_...ailand.pdf

In a study, the probability of FEMALE TO MALE transmission for HIV in thailand per sexual contact is 0.056 out of 1. That's 5.6% or 1 in 18 . That's 50 times more likely than the general rate of 1 in 900 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668

So if you come to SEA to get your dick wet, don't even think about rawdogging that semi-pro you see in a bar. You've been warned.

(01-14-2012 10:02 AM)P Dog Wrote:  HIV/AIDS is nothing for straight men to worry about no matter what part of the world there in outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Transmission rates for heterosexual oral and vaginal sex are very low, even more so for the male involved.

Wrong.

Hmmm, there has to be something missing, though
[url=http://www.stickmanbangkok.com/reader/reader145.html.[/url]

According to this site, a well known punter site for Thailand, 50% of pros engage in unprotected sex if they're offered enough dough, and +70% of Westerners in Thailand have at some point. If transmission rates for AIDS in Thailand were that high, wouldn't we be seeing more of an explosion?

Think of all the 70+ yr old dudes that go there for their last hurrah. Do you think they have any fear of AIDS

Not at all saying that go forth and enjoy bareback:
http://www.stickmanbangkok.com/reader/reader73.html

There are definitely people who are that 1 in 900 statistic. But that's the case with everything in life. Driving a motorcycle is dangerous but people still do it.

Post: #24

(01-15-2012 02:07 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Stop trying to drum this up as a social issue or racist misrepresentation of what is a fact. Its no ones opinion, its a fact. Im not even sure what the fuck is so offensive about all this? What the hell is everyone so offended about? Sure does highlight though how overly sensitive and downright ignorant some of you are at times though. The overreaction to what has been a statement of fact is pretty ridiculous.

Google is free chaps

My boy Harry is in the motherfucking house. Quick unrelated question thou, are you sure that you and Whoremonger aren’t one and the same? /user-556.html

(01-15-2012 02:54 AM)joehoya Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 02:07 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...121355.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Harry, thanks for the information. It is interesting reading. I retract my statement about there being no genetic link of decreased resistance. Thanks for keeping everyone honest and informed.

Come on joehoya, don’t tell me you are so easily bamboozled, by a Wikipedia article at that? There’s a reason why even shitty community colleges in the guetto don’t allow you to use it as a source for anything. While its true that most Black people lack CCR5 delta32 mutation so do most White people. So the genetic explanation is really moot. Funny, I always thought that Scandinavian had low HIV rates because easy access to health care,nutrition, education and overall low poverty rates. I wouldn’t have never guessed that it was because they were immune to the Monster.[/sarcasm] Thus, you prison population examples explains perfectly as to why HIV is higher among Blacks at least in the US.



But I digress, Like Harry said “Google is free chaps” Do your own research. Don’t take my word or Harry for that matter.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...074728.htm
About 10 percent of Europeans have a mutation that disables a protein the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-1)

A more recent study has the prevalence of the CCR5 delta32 in the White population at even less than that.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article

Quote:The homozygous CCR5 delta32 deletion, observed in approximately 1% of the white population, offers a natural resistance to HIV acquisition.

I guess you can still catch it even if you have the mutation.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/distrib...s-syrians/

Quote:A mutant allele of the beta-chemokine receptor gene CCR5 bearing a 32-basepair (bp) deletion that prevents cell invasion by the primary transmitting strain of HIV-1 has recently been characterized. Individuals homozygous for the mutation are resistant to infection, even after repeated high-risk exposure, but this resistance appears not absolute, as isolated cases of HIV-positive deletion homozygotes are emerging.

Frequency of CCR5delta32 in Brazilian populations
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16501811

Quote:The individuals studied came from a highly admixed population. Most of them were identified as white (N = 59), while blacks and browns (mulattoes) were N = 13 and N = 31, respectively. The observed frequencies, considering the white, black and brown samples (6.8, 3.8, and 6.4%, respectively), suggest an important European parental contribution, even in populations identified as black and brown. However, in Brazil as a whole, this allele shows gradients indicating a relatively good correlation with the classification based on skin color and other physical traits, used here to define major Brazilian population groups.

This is the only study I was able to find in a multi cultural society. Notice how mullatoes and Whites have the same prevalence for CCR5 delta32 mutation in Brazil.


http://www.mendeley.com/research/role-cc...-africa-4/

Quote:We confirmed the presence of two CCR5wt/delta 32 genotypes among 139 individuals (1.44%). PBMCs from these 2 heterozygous individuals were also found to be less susceptible to in vitro infection by an M-tropic HIV-1 primary isolate. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was found of an increased prevalence of the CCR5wt/delta 32 genotype in a high-risk HIV-seronegative cohort in West Africa. Furthermore, reduced susceptibility to HIV-1 infection among heterozygous individuals supports a role for 32-bp CCR5 deletion in HIV-1 resistance.

Even some Africans carry the mystical CCR5 delta32 mutation

I can go on and on and on. But I will stop now. The sky is blue, if you get touch water you’ll get wet, if an apple falls from a tree its going to hit the ground. Those are facts, it is not a fact that “Whites, due to a resistance built up against the Black Plague and Smallpox, have higher levels of immunity against HIV.” Only a small minority of White people carry the mutation. Gay White guys get the Monster all time. So all things being equal Blacks(nutrition, access to health care, social class, sex practices) do not have a higher chance contracting HIV than Whites do.

Post: #25

Quote:I can go on and on and on. But I will stop now. The sky is blue, if you get touch water you’ll get wet, if an apple falls from a tree its going to hit the ground. Those are facts, it is not a fact that “Whites, due to a resistance built up against the Black Plague and Smallpox, have higher levels of immunity against HIV.” Only a small minority of White people carry the mutation. Gay White guys get the Monster all time. So all things being equal Blacks(nutrition, access to health care, social class, sex practices) do not have a higher chance contracting HIV than Whites do.

A + B = C

Therefore C = D.

See how your logic is flawed?