Post: #1

The scientific community, namely(immunologist/virologist), has give us a ton of information concerning H.I.V. and AIDS,albeit controversial.

What are your views concerning how this virus even got started?

* It would be nice if whatever views you have were backed up by facts,published reports.

Pusscrook

Post: #2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_AIDS

Post: #3

(09-20-2011 03:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_AIDS

In Central Africa, there is a desire for "bush meat." Wild animal meat, including monkeys, chimps.

Eat bloody chimp meat, and you get AIDS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmeat

Post: #4

(09-20-2011 04:29 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 03:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_AIDS

In Central Africa, there is a desire for "bush meat." Wild animal meat, including monkeys, chimps.

Eat bloody chimp meat, and you get AIDS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmeat

This is probably the correct explanation. HIV can be transmitted from animals to humans by eating meat. There's no need to invoke a more, er, "vivid" mechanism...

Post: #5

(09-20-2011 03:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_AIDS

I understand that wikipedia says this, but is this what you believe? I can always go on wiki and edit it.

Post: #6

I've seen a documentary that said that HIV is not the reason of AIDS and that the medicines that people who have HIV get cause more harm than good. What do you think about it? Has anyone seen it? It made HIV/AIDS seem like a scam. Pretty interesting.

Post: #7

(09-20-2011 06:18 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 03:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_AIDS

I understand that wikipedia says this, but is this what you believe? I can always go on wiki and edit it.

You could edit it to say anything you want, but you couldn't necessarily link to academic articles and studies to support it. The Wikipedia article looks to be very well researched and sourced.

Post: #8

(09-20-2011 06:50 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 06:18 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 03:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_AIDS

I understand that wikipedia says this, but is this what you believe? I can always go on wiki and edit it.

You could edit it to say anything you want, but you couldn't necessarily link to academic articles and studies to support it. The Wikipedia article looks to be very well researched and sourced.

Are these your views as well? I'm not saying the article is incorrect, just wanted to know what you agree/disagree with.

Post: #9

(09-20-2011 06:55 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 06:50 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 06:18 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 03:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_AIDS

I understand that wikipedia says this, but is this what you believe? I can always go on wiki and edit it.

You could edit it to say anything you want, but you couldn't necessarily link to academic articles and studies to support it. The Wikipedia article looks to be very well researched and sourced.

Are these your views as well? I'm not saying the article is incorrect, just wanted to know what you agree/disagree with.

The evidence seems to support the view that the virus jumped from chimps to humans around the turn of the 20th Century, most likely from bushmeat consumption. I'm not an HIV researcher but I don't see any reason to disagree with their results.

Post: #10

(09-20-2011 06:31 PM)mofo Wrote:  I've seen a documentary that said that HIV is not the reason of AIDS and that the medicines that people who have HIV get cause more harm than good. What do you think about it? Has anyone seen it? It made HIV/AIDS seem like a scam. Pretty interesting.

No sane medical person believes this.

Magic J is doing well on meds. If he wasn't on meds he would have AIDS or be dead by now.

Post: #11

(09-20-2011 06:18 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  I understand that wikipedia says this, but is this what you believe?

Yes. The information sounds well-researched, and yes, I have checked the referenced important sources myself.

Quote:I can always go on wiki and edit it.

Will you refer the valid sources? If not, your edit won't stay for too long. Especially if you post something like that:

(09-20-2011 06:31 PM)mofo Wrote:  I've seen a documentary that said that HIV is not the reason of AIDS and that the medicines that people who have HIV get cause more harm than good

You didn't see a documentary, it was fiction.

Post: #12

Some of the early meds definitely did some damage but the new ones seem to be more effective with fewer side effects. I read that now you only take two or three pills a day, as opposed to more than a dozen.

A lot of people have paid with their life in denying that HIV causes AIDS:

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists

Post: #13

I've heard this so many times but is it true? HIV is actually hard to get if you're a straight male. I always assumed if the girl has it, you're getting it as soon as penetration occurs.

Post: #14

(09-21-2011 11:55 AM)houston Wrote:  I've heard this so many times but is it true? HIV is actually hard to get if you're a straight male. I always assumed if the girl has it, you're getting it as soon as penetration occurs.

If one partner is HIV-positive, the risk of acquiring it through vaginal penetration is about 1 in 500 per sex act. Absent aggravating factors like open wounds that result in blood being exchanged, it's actually very hard to transmit HIV through regular intercourse.

Post: #15

Yeah, it's extremely difficult for a straight male to get the virus through vaginal penetration. Anal sex is the most common source of male/female transmission of the virus as the anus is much more susceptible to tearing.

Post: #16

(09-20-2011 03:14 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_AIDS

Though controversial, and unproven, I will simply ask a few questions. I can asuure you, there will be more questions to come, and, more evidence.The consensus is that the first recorded event of A.I.D.S. in the western world, as opposed to reverse transcriptase activity in cells , (retroviruses to the scientific community) took place in the 1980's . Now, they are enough records to support that in 1959 plasma samples in the congo were showing up with reverse transcriptase activity. This of course would tie directly into the "hunter theory" (S.I.V.cpz), as opposed to SFV. Never mind Cameroon, we can debate that later. NOW this theory ,proposes, that infected chimps were being eaten by hunters and therefore adapted and mutated within its new host. Sounds great so far.

Question.... How long have the people of Congo hunted for the Macaque monkey? I am assuming this date should be way before 1959. This is where I will start from as opposed to 1999 . You could rebut this by saying it doesn't matter, because from its inception to cellular death, no one knows the life expectancy of a virus.
What is the life expectancy of the people of Congo back then , and now? What percentage of the people of Congo ,ate "bush meat"in 1959 as opposed to today?. What is the life expectancy of an A.I.D.S. patient on/off anti-virals? My calculations will follow after we follow up. It gets quite interesting.

For the record , the academic community has never stated that this is an absolute when it comes to the origin of the virus that was contracted by humans, but its the more prevalent of all.

WHen we get past this part, we can tackle the infamous cross atlantic species jumping virus that was discovered in 1999 and labeled as you know it today.

Post: #17

(09-21-2011 12:03 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(09-21-2011 11:55 AM)houston Wrote:  I've heard this so many times but is it true? HIV is actually hard to get if you're a straight male. I always assumed if the girl has it, you're getting it as soon as penetration occurs.

If one partner is HIV-positive, the risk of acquiring it through vaginal penetration is about 1 in 500 per sex act. Absent aggravating factors like open wounds that result in blood being exchanged, it's actually very hard to transmit HIV through regular intercourse.

Could you point me to a source on that 1/500 stat, and do you know if that is when using a condom? Trying to allay my own paranoia.

Post: #18

From what I've read, I infer that to get HIV from vaginal sex you must have an open sore on your dick and she has to be on her period. Or you have to have an open sore and have really rough sex.

Check out this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

If you have vaginal sex with an HIV positive girl 10,000 times, you have a 0.05% chance of getting it. In other words, Magic Johnson is on the down low.

Post: #19

(09-21-2011 07:24 PM)Roosh Wrote:  From what I've read, I infer that to get HIV from vaginal sex you must have an open sore on your dick and she has to be on her period. Or you have to have an open sore and have really rough sex.

Check out this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

If you have vaginal sex with an HIV positive girl 10,000 times, you have a 0.05% chance of getting it. In other words, Magic Johnson is on the down low.

Roosh? you did do these calculations taking into account the viral load of the person, incubation period, and type , I'm assuming?

Post: #20

Have you read any of the links that people have posted here? I'm guessing no.

You wrote:

Quote: It would be nice if whatever views you have were backed up by facts,published reports.

We have, yet you haven't. You have an agenda, we got it, but what is the point then of asking for our opinion. if you got some evidence then post it.

Post: #21

(09-21-2011 07:51 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Have you read any of the links that people have posted here? I'm guessing no.

You wrote:

Quote: It would be nice if whatever views you have were backed up by facts,published reports.

We have, yet you haven't. You have an agenda, we got it, but what is the point then of asking for our opinion. if you got some evidence then post it.

Quite the contrary. The consensus to the post is that H.I.V. ,originated in Africa, via eating infected meat. I myself have questions, and I Have already posted some facts that would run contrary to what the consensus is.How you equate that to an agenda on a "gaming whores" forum, is beyond me. Its a debate ,not an agenda.

You made the assumption that Magic was on the "down low"(I'm assuming this would mean he got it from homosexual activity) simply because if you have sex with an H.I.V. positive girt, 10,000 times, the chances of getting H.I.V. is 0.05% chance of getting it? If he read that would he say you have an agenda? Did you take into account any other factors.... Incubation period, type of strain, region, mode of transmission? If you don't want me debating the issue then just erase the post. It just seems odd that you would think of it as an agenda in a place like this. What retard would come in a forum like this to disprove the origin of H.I.V.?

Post: #22

How easy is it to get HIV from raw anal sex with a girl? I've heard going from ass to pussy is real bad for the guy and girl.

Post: #23

(09-21-2011 08:16 PM)houston Wrote:  How easy is it to get HIV from raw anal sex with a girl? I've heard going from ass to pussy is real bad for the guy and girl.

Well Hou,

According to some published reports, anal secretions/ anal tissue increases the mode of transmission, more so than vaginal or oral sex . How much more so than that of say, an intravenous drug user, or just vagina/oral sex, I'm not sure. Doesn't mean you can't pummel an ass, but this seems to be a hell of a lot more riskier than say , getting head from what I've read. . I've read where going from the ass/pussy or vice-versa, is a big no-no ,(unless you give a good washing to sexual organs) not only in reference to H.I.V. , but also some of the more common STDs. If you bareback a bitch, vaginally/anally, or even decide to just get head, there is only one way of really knowing what she has. Having said that, one should still understand the incubation periods,. THink of it this way, the whore goes and get a test today, shows up negative for antibodies, but , when was the last time she had sex? What if it was last night? Probably not enough time to show up on a test. With Oral, it seems there is still a chance of contracting eventual death(bleeding gums etc.) but it's quite a remote finding.

Post: #24

(09-21-2011 07:24 PM)Roosh Wrote:  From what I've read, I infer that to get HIV from vaginal sex you must have an open sore on your dick and she has to be on her period. Or you have to have an open sore and have really rough sex.

Check out this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

If you have vaginal sex with an HIV positive girl 10,000 times, you have a 0.05% chance of getting it. In other words, Magic Johnson is on the down low.

That isn't what the statistic says. It's 5 cases per 10,000 exposures which works out to a 0.05% chance per sex act. That's about a 1 in 2000 chance. Even though your odds of contracting HIV from vaginal sex are low, it's still responsible for the majority of cases each year due to the fact that vaginal sex is more common than other acts that can lead to transmission. Don't think it can't happen.

Rah: The 1 in 500 number is from one of my med school lectures on HIV. It's possible that Wikipedia is referencing a different study (which wouldn't necessarily conflict with the other figure if the confidence intervals overlap. The study populations could be different too, e.g. different HIV strains, different viral loads, or different proportion of circumcised vs. uncircumcised males).

Pusscrook: HIV is the cause of AIDS. There is no reputable evidence that it isn't and irrefutable evidence that it is. If you don't believe it, then go share needles with a bunch of injection drug users, refuse antiviral treatment, and see what happens in 4-10 years.

Post: #25

(09-21-2011 05:02 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  Though controversial, and unproven, I will simply ask a few questions. I can asuure you, there will be more questions to come, and, more evidence.The consensus is that the first recorded event of A.I.D.S. in the western world, as opposed to reverse transcriptase activity in cells , (retroviruses to the scientific community) took place in the 1980's . Now, they are enough records to support that in 1959 plasma samples in the congo were showing up with reverse transcriptase activity.

I didn't see those "enough records", but it could be explained. Remember that people do not die from AIDS per se, they typically die from some infection like pneumonia which their body cannot fight off. So it may be that there were some people who died from AIDS, it is just the diagnosis was "pneumonia".

Now the spread of AIDS is mostly fueled by IV drug users (very high transfer rate) and men who have (anal) sex with men (in this case the transfer rate is much lower, but it is compensated by the fact that one gay dude can buttfuck ten other dudes in a night). Both groups were, let's say, not very popular in the society. In the IV group the doctors just said, well, he had so much chemical shit in his body so we have no idea what's happening. And there was - and still is - some stigma against gay men. So I'd speculate their deaths from AIDS rarely received a lot of medical attention, and didn't often trigger the research.

Quote:Question.... How long have the people of Congo hunted for the Macaque monkey? I am assuming this date should be way before 1959. This is where I will start from as opposed to 1999 . You could rebut this by saying it doesn't matter, because from its inception to cellular death, no one knows the life expectancy of a virus.

Wiki says the transmission happened somewhere in early 20th century. Maybe the life expectancy was so low that they didn't really have a chance to develop AIDS (it takes some time before a person can actually infect another person). Then the "normal" infection rates are quite low, and I doubt they have a lot of gays or IV drug users back there.

Wiki also states what is not resolved yet:

"It is not yet explained why only four HIV groups (HIV-1 groups M and O, and HIV-2 groups A and B) spread considerably in human populations, despite bushmeat practices being very widespread in Central and West Africa,[10] and the resulting human SIV infections being common.

It remains also unexplained why all epidemic HIV groups emerged in humans nearly simultaneously, and only in the 20th century, despite very old human exposure to SIV (a recent phylogenetic study demonstrated that SIV is at least tens of thousands of years old)."