Post: #26

(01-15-2012 10:20 AM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

(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....

I stand by my prison population example as being the PRIMARY reason for the difference. However, I cannot say that there are ZERO genetic factors that makes blacks more vulnerable. I ignored the Wikipedia article, and focused on the Science Today article, while checking its source.

There are a couple of other journal articles that appear to raise some issue with the findings. HOWEVER, when reading them I came to the conclusion that I don't have the adequate background in Biology (a C in AP Biology almost 20 years ago) to make a judgement without clouding it by what I WANT to see in the data.

If I am not competent to make a judgement on the validity of the scientific evidence, then I won't make one.

Post: #27

I'm interested in all this AIDS/HIV stuff not because I'm a fearless raw dogger but because I like statistics.

Anyone have any thoughts on this video in response to MikeCF?





The biggest flaw I can find is her reference to statistics on new US male heterosexual cases in 2012 which are as follows:

White: 508
Black: 2745

She seems to turn a blind eye to the fact that there are five times as many new black cases. And that only 508 white straight males in the US get AIDS every year. In the same year, there were 1400 ride-related injuries in amusement parks in the US.

http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporat...update.pdf


Also, very interesting post from HH:

(01-15-2012 02:07 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  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: #28

(04-10-2015 08:54 PM)redbeard Wrote:  Anyone have any thoughts on this video in response to MikeCF?

Mike is basically correct, and she is trying to harp on the wording that female to male transmission "never" occurs to obscure the fact of just how rare it is.

According to the CDC and another metastudy that analyzed a number of other studies, the frequency of female to male HIV transmission is 4-5 transmissions per **10,000** instances of vaginal intercourse (the rates for anal intercourse are estimated to be only very slightly higher).

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/law/pdf/Hivtranmsmision.pdf

http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/www...2009-2.pdf

In other words, if you raw dog a girl who is HIV positive once, your odds of contracting HIV from her are about 1 in 2,000 according to these estimates.

However, these estimates are almost certainly exaggerated, and in most relevant cases grossly exaggerated. They are based on attribution studies rather than actual documented cases of transmission, and men who have in fact contracted HIV from other men will often lie about it.

Further, it is possible to look at studies of "stable couples". Here is one (this is one of the studies that the CDC relies on to form its estimate):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...6-0027.pdf

These are studies where one of the partners of a stable couple (either the male or the female) is HIV positive, and they looked at transmission rates over time.

If you look at the details of the study, you can note two things. First, women are vastly more efficient at transmitting HIV to men when they are at advanced stages of the disease, and are symptomatic. Second, the odds of female-to-male transmission are much higher when the female is menstruating.

If you put all this together, the odds of female to male transmission when the female is asymptomatic (not frankly sick or at advanced stages of AIDS) and is not bleeding are tiny -- much much lower than 1 in 2,000 per intercourse. In practical terms, these odds might as well be zero.

And unsurprisingly, it is quite difficult to find actual documented cases of transmission under these circumstances (as Mike correctly notes).

The relevant conclusion is that the degree that heterosexual men are made to fear and worry about HIV transmission are completely out of proportion to the infinitesimal risk involved (much less than 1 in 2,000 for an HIV positive female -- and of course any given female you encounter is extremely unlikely to be HIV positive so you have to multiply by another very small number).

In short, it's not something that almost any man has any rational reasons to worry about.

Post: #29

(04-10-2015 09:52 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  They are based on attribution studies rather than actual documented cases of transmission, and men who have in fact contracted HIV from other men will often lie about it.

Post: #30

Straight men can get AIDS, through sharing needles.

Blacks (and Hispanics to a lesser extent) have greater AIDS transmission rates than whites. Why, it's not clear. I saw an article in LA Weekly which claimed that they all fuck the same amount, but that minorities are less inclined to get tested. Genes may also play a role in how easily the disease is transmitted.

White straight men who aren't druggies? Nope. Don't take it from me, ask the CDC (IDU = Intravenous drug user, MSM = Men who have sex with men):



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/men/i...rmin-00103

I guarantee if you asked an expert on this, they would say heterosexual white men who don't do IV drugs are not a risky group.

Post: #31

(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.

Check the CDC stats. Maybe they're bogus, but I doubt it. So there may be some legitimacy to his comment, which is unfortunate to say.

Post: #32

(04-10-2015 10:26 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Straight men can get AIDS, through sharing needles.

Blacks (and Hispanics to a lesser extent) have greater AIDS transmission rates than whites. Why, it's not clear. I saw an article in LA Weekly which claimed that they all fuck the same amount, but that minorities are less inclined to get tested. Genes may also play a role in how easily the disease is transmitted.

White straight men who aren't druggies? Nope. Don't take it from me, ask the CDC (IDU = Intravenous drug user, MSM = Men who have sex with men):



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/men/i...rmin-00103

I guarantee if you asked an expert on this, they would say heterosexual white men who don't do IV drugs are not a risky group.

It's not only that they don't get tested as much, they also have a smaller pool of partners (assuming they prefer men of their own ethnic group)

Post: #33

(04-10-2015 09:52 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  If you look at the details of the study, you can note two things. First, women are vastly more efficient at transmitting HIV to men when they are at advanced stages of the disease, and are symptomatic. Second, the odds of female-to-male transmission are much higher when the female is menstruating.

Damn, finally a proven negative to fucking a girl on her period.

Post: #34

30 years and the mother humpers are still trying to convince us that PIV-transmitted HIV is real.

Post: #35

The cure for AIDS is $180,000 directly injected into the bloodstream.

I'm not just positive. I'm HIV Positive.

Post: #36

http://www.poz.com/pdfs/P04-14p53.risk_transmission.pdf

   

Post: #37

"Listen punk, I'm gonna tell you something -- last time I fought you I had the flu."

"Ohhhh. What's it gonna be this time? THE AIDS?"

Post: #38

(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.

Damn. I guess my days of having sex with gay African American transsexual heroine users are over :/

Post: #39

(04-10-2015 10:39 PM)redbeard Wrote:  [quote='The Lizard of Oz' pid='997819' dateline='1428720723']
women are vastly more efficient at transmitting HIV to men when they are at advanced stages of the disease,

Did it say why?