Is AIDS still predominantly a homosexual disease?

[TimV]

Actually you shouldn't ask if it is "still" a gay disease, as it's never been primarily a gay disease.

Africans hate homosexuals, and except in jails they don't do that. The farms I managed over there were labor intensive, and laborers don't have cars, so we'd bus them in and give them housing for the length of their contracts, usually a couple months, and since managers have to settle disputed, you pretty much know who's sleeping around with whom.

The big problems are promiscuity, and the widespread believe that it is abstanence that causes AIDS, rather than sex, so prostitution is as commonplace as eating and sleeping.

 

[lwadkins]

Originally posted by Augusta
Its gross but its true. I could try to find where I saw that stat but if you think about it you can see how on a fairly regular basis they are in contact with well you know. I am not going to draw a picture.

Yes, please no drawings or pictures

 

[ANT]

I just received this article in my e-mail. We ought to write up a general letter and copy it, then let everybody collect $5,000 from this State Representative.

A Fool's Wager – Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Marriage?

State representative Alvin Holmes (D–Montgomery, Ala.) is putting his money where his worldview is. He is offering $5000 to anyone who can prove the Bible actually condemns homosexual marriage.

Of course, it’s quite easy to prove the Bible does not support homosexual marriage, so why would a man make such a preposterous wager? No matter what evidence you put before him, he will explain it away, because he wants to support homosexual marriage. We’ve seen this same type of “reasoning” on the abortion issue. No matter how you go about showing that abortion kills a preborn child, there are those who still support abortion. There are some who even recognize that abortion kills a proborn baby, and they still support baby killing for “high social reasons.” The same is true on the homosexual issue. If homosexuality is explained away when it is self-evident in the Bible, then so much else can be explained away, including adultery and other sexual sins. The Bible becomes no more authoritative than Aesop’s Fables.

The nature of unbelieving thought is to interpret evidences in terms of a pre-constructed worldview. The resurrection of Jesus is denied because skeptics begin with the premise that resurrections can’t happen. When evidence is shown to the contrary, the evidence is explained away. The rich man appealed to Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of the consequences of their lifestyle choices. They would certainly listen to a man risen from the dead. Abraham’s response is not what the rich man wanted to hear: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. . . . If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:19-31). The Bible is plain enough on these issues. Rep. Holmes doesn’t want to listen.

The creation account sets the standard for proper sexual relationships, including marriage. Adam was incomplete until God created someone “suitable” (KJV: “meet” not “mate”) for him. God did not create a man and a woman, thereby giving Adam a choice. God created a woman, setting a standard. Even if the Bible never condemned homosexual behavior, the creation account alone would be enough to establish what God wants in marital and sexual relationships. Even the physical makeup of men and women is a rational defense of heterosexual relationships.

The command to be “fruitful and multiply” can only apply to heterosexual relationships. The NT supports the one man, one woman standard: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Mark 10:6–8). The Bible couldn’t be any more clear. In any normal world, Rep. Holmes would be $5000 poorer.

Then there are the direct prohibitions of homosexual behavior found in the OT and NT. If homosexual behavior is prohibited, then it follows that a marriage that is built on homosexual marriage has to be wrong as well. The story of Sodom should be enough to convince anyone that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible (Gen. 18-19). But if this detailed and irrefutable story isn’t enough, there are the stated prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.”
Pro-homosexual advocates argue that these laws are found among “purity laws,” therefore, they no longer apply. The same purity laws found in Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality also prohibit rape, theft, putting obstacles in front of blind people, sex with animals, and murder. Why haven’t these laws been abrogated under the new covenant?

Paul describes homosexual behavior as “degrading,” “unnatural,” and “indecent” (Rom. 1:26–27). If homosexual behavior is described using these terms, it’s hard to see how marriage makes the behavior Paul condemns legitimate. If two murderers marry, does this mean that now they are married, murder somehow becomes legitimate? Rep. Holmes is living in a world of his own making. The Bible condemns him because he “gives hearty approval to those who practice” homosexuality (Rom. 1:32). The leadership of Hutchinson Missionary Baptist Church should discipline him for his rejection of God’s Word, and the people of Montgomery, Alabama, should vote him out of office.

We'll get a petition with well over 100,000 signatures on it to prove this is the Biblical teaching. (Then collect our money! )


[Edited on 2-15-2005 by ANT]

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

just like Kaposi's sarcoma and the virus that causes it .

Kerry,
One of the diseases from AIDS is KS. KS is not a virus; it is a cancer.

Kaposi's Sarcoma:
A cancer characterized by numerous bluish-red nodules on the skin, usually on the lower extremities, that is endemic to equatorial Africa and often occurs in a particularly virulent form in people with AIDS.

Yes, I know. I'm sorry if I miscommunicated. But I thought KS was caused by a virus that our body normally would keep in check.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by OS_X

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

just like Kaposi's sarcoma and the virus that causes it .

Kerry,
One of the diseases from AIDS is KS. KS is not a virus; it is a cancer.

Kaposi's Sarcoma:
A cancer characterized by numerous bluish-red nodules on the skin, usually on the lower extremities, that is endemic to equatorial Africa and often occurs in a particularly virulent form in people with AIDS.

Yes, I know. I'm sorry if I miscommunicated. But I thought KS was caused by a virus that our body normally would keep in check.

kerry,
Keep in mind, today it is a cancer, but whose to say that in ten years they don't discover that all cancers are in fact viral.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

true, true.

I found the source I was looking for.

http://www.has.vcu.edu/group/tip.htm

In Baltimore, when the city's public clinics suffered cutbacks, the nature of the syphilis affecting the city's poor neighborhoods changed. It used to be an acute infection, something that most people could get treated fairly quickly before they had a chance to infect many others. But with the cutbacks, syphilis increasingly became a chronic disease, and the disease's carriers had three or four or five times longer to pass on their infection. Epidemics tip because of the extraordinary efforts of a few select carriers. But they also sometimes tip when something happens to transform the epidemic agent itself.

This is a well-known principle in virology. The strains of flu that circulate at the beginning of each winter's flu epidemic are quite different from the strains of flu that circulate at the end. The most famous flu epidemic of all - the pandemic of 1918 - was first spotted in the spring of that year and was, relatively speaking, quite tame. But over the summer the virus underwent some strange transformation and over the next six months ended up killing between 20 and 40 million people worldwide. Nothing had changed in the way in which the virus was being spread. But the virus had suddenly become much more deadly.

The Dutch AIDS researcher Jaap Goudsmit argues that this same kind of dramatic transformation happened with HIV. Goudsmit's work focuses on what is known as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, or PCP. All of us carry the bacterium in our bodies, probably since birth or immediately thereafter. In most of us it is harmless. Our immune systems keep it in check easily. But if something, such as HIV, wipes out our immune system, it becomes so uncontrollable that it can cause a deadly form of pneumonia. PCP is so common among AIDS patients, in fact, that it has come to be seen as an almost certain indication of the presence of the virus. What Goudsmit did was go back in the medical literature and look for cases of PCP, and what he found is quite chilling. Just after World War II, beginning in the Baltic port city of Danzig and spreading through central Europe, there was an epidemic of PCP that claimed the lives of thousands of small children.

Goudsmit has analyzed one of the towns hit hardest by the PCP epidemic, the mining town of Heerlen in the Dutch province of Limburg. Heerlen had a training hospital for midwives called the Kweekschool voor Vroedvrouwen, a single unit of which - the so-called Swedish barrack - was used in the 1950s as a special ward for underweight or premature infants. Between June 1955 and July 1958, 81 infants in the Swedish barrack came down with PCP and 24 died. Goudsmit thinks that this was an early HIV epidemic, and that somehow the virus got into the hospital, and was spread from child to child by the then, apparently common, practice of using the same needles over and over again for blood transfusions or injections of antibiotics. He writes:

Most likely at least one adult - probably a coal miner from Poland, Czechoslovakia, or Italy - brought the virus to Limburg. This one adult could have died from AIDS with little notice. . . . He could have transmitted the virus to his wife and offspring. His infected wife (or girlfriend) could have given birth in a Swedish barrack to a child who was HIV infected but seemingly healthy. Unsterilized needles and syringes could have spread the virus from child to child.

The truly strange thing about this story, of course, is that not all of the children died. Only a third did. The others did what today would seem almost impossible. They defeated HIV, purged it from their bodies, and went on to live healthy lives. In other words, the strains of HIV that were circulating back in the 1950s were a lot different from the strains of HIV that circulate today. They were every bit as contagious. But they were weak enough that most people - even small children - were able to fight them off and survive them. The HIV epidemic tipped in the early 1980s, in short, not just because of the enormous changes in sexual behavior in the gay communities that made it possible for the virus to spread rapidly. It also tipped because HIV itself changed. For one reason or another, the virus became a lot deadlier. Once it infected you, you stayed infected. It stuck.

This seems pretty plausible for me, seeing as though virii and bacterium have a tendency to 'adapt' over time to human conditions.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Very interesting article, Kerry.

 

[Augusta]

Just like that article says about other viruses and bacterium: "In most of us it is harmless. Our immune systems keep it in check easily." I think that is how HIV is in most people and it is only your lifestyle and or environment that causes you to succumb to HIV or any other virus or bacteria in your body for that matter. I think honestly that HIV is a sham in order to blame bad behavior on a virus instead of the lifestyle. It's a really lousy sham too but most people don't question it because of the politically correct nature of the whole thing and they assume that they have taken the HIV virus and put it through the proper procedures of isolating and successfully passing the virus etc. I have heard this was never successfully done but I can be corrected on that if someone knows where it is documented. I am actually curious to know if it was. It just seems so hokey to me. A virus that attacks your immune system, don't they all do that??

 

[RamistThomist]

This might be too emotion-laden and if it is, I am sorry. I have heard via the grapevine (keep in mind I am sceptical) that a cure for aids could be found but the medicine companies are keeping it suppressed because they would lose too much money. Is this true?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
This might be too emotion-laden and if it is, I am sorry. I have heard via the grapevine (keep in mind I am sceptical) that a cure for aids could be found but the medicine companies are keeping it suppressed because they would lose too much money. Is this true?

It has also been said of Cancers and Diabetes; at best an old wives tail Jacob.

 

[hhtuck]

Originally posted by Augusta
Just like that article says about other viruses and bacterium: "In most of us it is harmless. Our immune systems keep it in check easily." I think that is how HIV is in most people and it is only your lifestyle and or environment that causes you to succumb to HIV or any other virus or bacteria in your body for that matter. I think honestly that HIV is a sham in order to blame bad behavior on a virus instead of the lifestyle....... A virus that attacks your immune system, don't they all do that??

HIV is NOT in most people and just easily fought off.

Who has ever said that HIV causes bad behavior?

Viruses do not attack your immune system. Your immune system attacks viruses. HIV decreases the effectiveness of your immune system to the point where another disease kills you which you would usually fight off yourself.... like Pneumocystis Pneumonia.

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
This might be too emotion-laden and if it is, I am sorry. I have heard via the grapevine (keep in mind I am sceptical) that a cure for aids could be found but the medicine companies are keeping it suppressed because they would lose too much money. Is this true?

Don't know about aids but I'm sure about cancer. Get the book "World Without Cancer" by Edward Griffin. I can introduce you to people who have beaten the disease using the methods that the medical community calls "quackery".

Dr. Max Gerson was curing people of cancer in the 1950's. In the last few months, my doctor in pittsburgh has used gerson's therapy with two patients. One had intestinal cancer and the other had an brain tumor that could not be operated on. They've both been back to the medical doctor's for tests and now have a clean bill of health. Needless to say, the md's were perplexed because neither one went the so called "traditional" route.

There is definately a cure for cancer. I've personally seen it. It's also alot cheaper than cutting, burning and poisoning which is usually the treatment of choice. The cancer industry is a big money maker.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I read recently that chemotherapy has become a major source of cancer for hospital workers!

 

[Scot]

I read recently that chemotherapy has become a major source of cancer for hospital workers!

Of course, the stuff is poison.

Here's an example that I use with people when talking to them about cancer.

Say that you have a garbage can full of stinking garbage. After letting it sit for awhile, flies and rats start to come around. Pretty soon, you have flies and rats all over the place. Now, you can do one of two things. You could spray the flies with poison and try shooting the rats with a shotgun. That may work for awhile but eventually the flies and rats will come back. You're also going to blow holes all through the garbage can and contaminate it even more with the poison that you're using to try to kill the flies.

The other option would be to simply clean out the can. When the garbage is gone, the flies and rats will go away.

The first approach is the medical approach for dealing with disease. They focus on the symptom and not the biological terrain of the patient. Someone with cancer already has a weak immune system. They don't need it weakened further with chemo but that's what makes the money.

 

[Craig]

Here\'s a link:

I'd be especially interested in what Scott thinks of this...the research seems legit, downright convincing if you ask me.

My biology prof at Huntington is part of this minority of people to say HIV doesn't cause AIDS...it's in fact harmless, and the meds we use to treat it actually produces the "AIDS" symptoms. In a nutshell, it's the meds that are killing people. Another interesting factoid: Magic Johnson isn't taking the meds that are apparently killing people who are HIV+.

HERE IS THE LINK

 

[Scot]

Another good resource is a book called "AIDS: What The Government Isn't Telling You" by Dr. Lorraine Day, M.D.

She's a Orthopedic Trauma Surgeon and was on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics. She was also Cheif of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital. She cured herself of cancer using a protocol similar to what Dr. Max Gerson recommended. She's not too popular with the medical profession anymore.

She a Seventh Day Adventist, so ignore her theology.

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Scot]