Bright Spark
Posts: 277 
August 22nd, 2006, 06:36 PM
Quoting
I'm an atheist and don't care what God, the Easter Bunny or any other mythological figure says about AIDs. The lowest AIDS rates, at least in Canada, are in the heterosexual female group. Not Lesbians. Both, however, have extremely low infection ratres and extremely low from sexual activity. Most infection is from drug use and non-sexual procedures (especially drug transfusions in the 80's).
Quoting
Perfect.
Quoting
The really funny part about that is that the community with the lowest infection rates through sex is lesbians... So if HIV is God's punishment, doesn't that mean lesbians must be the chosen people?
[. I almost fell over when the old question about whether or not AIDS is "God's" punishment for gay men came up. WTF??? AIDS didn't even start with gay men ... it started in the hetero community. Ignorance may be bliss to some but they are abusing the privilege.
House Member
Posts: 2,843 
Location: California
Location: California
August 22nd, 2006, 06:50 PM
HIV is spread through bodily fluids. The sex with the least bodily fluid exchange is lesbian sex. Women are more likely to get it having sex with men (in fact they are more likely to get it from men than men are to get it from women). It's just the mechanics of the thing. That's why anal sex is the most dangerous form of sex. Being memonite or amish or whatever doesn't change the mechanics. It's not enough to make me turn lesbian, but it's interesting.
Personally, I recognize HIV for what it is: a disease. It's no different from TB, diabetes, heart disease or cancer. All diseases have behavioral components, but I'm not about to get on my high horse about it.
HIV is spread through bodily fluids. The sex with the least bodily fluid exchange is lesbian sex. Women are more likely to get it having sex with men (in fact they are more likely to get it from men than men are to get it from women). It's just the mechanics of the thing. That's why anal sex is the most dangerous form of sex. Being memonite or amish or whatever doesn't change the mechanics. It's not enough to make me turn lesbian, but it's interesting.
Personally, I recognize HIV for what it is: a disease. It's no different from TB, diabetes, heart disease or cancer. All diseases have behavioral components, but I'm not about to get on my high horse about it.
House Member
Posts: 2,843
Location: California
Location: California
August 22nd, 2006, 06:59 PM
http://www.actoronto.org/website/hom...aidsstatswomen
Women represent a growing proportion of positive HIV test reports in Toronto, Ontario, and Canada. They have accounted for about 25% of all HIV diagnoses in Canada over the past three years (2001, 2002, and 2003). In the years between 1985 – 1997 they accounted for only 12% of HIV diagnoses.
Women accounted for 38.6% of all positive HIV test reports among Canadians aged 15 – 29 in 2002.
Heterosexual contact accounted for 58.3% of positive HIV test reports among women in 2002. It remains their main risk factor for HIV infection.
Injection drug use (IDU) is another significant risk factor. IDU accounted for 37.2% of positive HIV test reports among women in 2002.
Women make up an increasing proportion of Canadians living with AIDS, from 6.1% before 1994 to 16.5% in 2002.
Ontario
Women accounted for 27.8% of all positive HIV test reports in 2002.
Heterosexual contact accounted for 79.5% of HIV diagnoses among women in 2002.
Women accounted for 12.3% of all positive HIV test reports between 1985 and 2002.
It is estimated that 3.1 of every 10,000 pregnant women in Ontario in 2002 were HIV-positive
Quoting
That's not the newer picture of HIV in Canada and the US I'm afraid. What we're seeing is what has already happened in Africa (heterosexual sex is spreading the disease to straight women more and more). For too long, we've thought we were almost immune to the risk of HIV, as straight women who don't use IV drugs. I've seen more and more HIV positive women giving birth. Most of them got it from boyfriends and husbands who didn't know they were infected until it was too late.
[ . The lowest AIDS rates, at least in Canada, are in the heterosexual female group. Not Lesbians. Both, however, have extremely low infection ratres and extremely low from sexual activity. Most infection is from drug use and non-sexual procedures (especially drug transfusions in the 80's).
http://www.actoronto.org/website/hom...aidsstatswomen
Women represent a growing proportion of positive HIV test reports in Toronto, Ontario, and Canada. They have accounted for about 25% of all HIV diagnoses in Canada over the past three years (2001, 2002, and 2003). In the years between 1985 – 1997 they accounted for only 12% of HIV diagnoses.
Women accounted for 38.6% of all positive HIV test reports among Canadians aged 15 – 29 in 2002.
Heterosexual contact accounted for 58.3% of positive HIV test reports among women in 2002. It remains their main risk factor for HIV infection.
Injection drug use (IDU) is another significant risk factor. IDU accounted for 37.2% of positive HIV test reports among women in 2002.
Women make up an increasing proportion of Canadians living with AIDS, from 6.1% before 1994 to 16.5% in 2002.
Ontario
Women accounted for 27.8% of all positive HIV test reports in 2002.
Heterosexual contact accounted for 79.5% of HIV diagnoses among women in 2002.
Women accounted for 12.3% of all positive HIV test reports between 1985 and 2002.
It is estimated that 3.1 of every 10,000 pregnant women in Ontario in 2002 were HIV-positive
Bright Spark
Posts: 277
August 22nd, 2006, 07:00 PM
Just a note: according to Health Canada about 15% of AIDS cases in Canada are from heterosexual activity Of that 15%, it's thought that most are not cases that incurred in Canada but entered Canada via immigration, student visits, etc. Drug use (second major cause of HIV) is higher among non heterosexual groups than heterosexuals but still not high in either group. The HIV rate in Canada is just less than one per thousand. The rate per non-drug using heterosexuals is about one per 7 thousand and the rate for non-drug using heterosexual Canadians not infected from outside of Canada is extremely rare.
Just a note: according to Health Canada about 15% of AIDS cases in Canada are from heterosexual activity Of that 15%, it's thought that most are not cases that incurred in Canada but entered Canada via immigration, student visits, etc. Drug use (second major cause of HIV) is higher among non heterosexual groups than heterosexuals but still not high in either group. The HIV rate in Canada is just less than one per thousand. The rate per non-drug using heterosexuals is about one per 7 thousand and the rate for non-drug using heterosexual Canadians not infected from outside of Canada is extremely rare.
Bright Spark
Posts: 313
August 22nd, 2006, 07:10 PM
Quoting
Muliples more people in Canada die in a single year from Heart disease than have died from AIDs in the last 25 years. The word 'thousand' might be a lot but there's a 'thousand thousand' in a million and Canada has 33 million people. AIDS is a blip statistically as a cause of death in Canada.
but AIDS affect probably thousands of Canadians every year....
Bright Spark
Posts: 313
August 22nd, 2006, 07:31 PM
Quoting
You can also get a better perspective from Stats Canada from their death statistics. One is 3500 males in Canada die from AIDs and the figure for females is one in 21,000 (rounded off). This is tragic but should hardly be a priority for our PM when everything from diabetes to melagnoma to car acidents to suicides to failing lungs, livers, and almost evey other part of the body causes more deaths.
Just a note: according to Health Canada about 15% of AIDS cases in Canada are from heterosexual activity Of that 15%, it's thought that most are not cases that incurred in Canada but entered Canada via immigration, student visits, etc. Drug use (second major cause of HIV) is higher among non heterosexual groups than heterosexuals but still not high in either group. The HIV rate in Canada is just less than one per thousand. The rate per non-drug using heterosexuals is about one per 7 thousand and the rate for non-drug using heterosexual Canadians not infected from outside of Canada is extremely rare.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,847
Location: Victoria, BC
Location: Victoria, BC
August 23rd, 2006, 09:12 AM
Yup. I'm sure it is. In fact ...
Not "pandering to special interest groups" isn't a big seller in my books because the classification is so broad that it crosses the lines of human rights. Being part of an AIDS conference hardly falls into that category anyway. It's a world health issue.
Having said that, I do agree with Tamarin and Bluealberta that we need to worry about our own people before heading out to save the rest of the world. Once our own back porch is cleaned, then we can turn our attention elsewhere and offer some true assistance. Trying to save the world while our own country is burning is a division of labour that means no one gets our full attention.
Am I my brother's keeper? Sure ... but I can't very well keep my brother until I learn to keep myself. I figure I need to start with me and work outward.
This may sound cruel, but I suspect there is some "natural selection" at work here. Darwin stuff. If a group of people are vicitimizing their own for supersitious reasons, maybe they're not quite with the program yet. It breaks my heart that the innocent are the ones to pick up the tab on this, but I can't save them from themselves. Yi ... better run for my asbestos suit after saying that.
Quoting
Quoting
The really funny part about that is that the community with the lowest infection rates through sex is lesbians... So if HIV is God's punishment, doesn't that mean lesbians must be the chosen people?
I almost fell over when the old question about whether or not AIDS is "God's" punishment for gay men came up. WTF??? AIDS didn't even start with gay men ... it started in the hetero community. Ignorance may be bliss to some but they are abusing the privilege.
Yup. I'm sure it is. In fact ... Quoting
Say what? Did I vote for Harper?????????????? I'd vote for him about the same time I'd vote for a reincarnation of Hitler. So no, I did not, have never and will never vote Conservative. Calberty, I'm a dyke. They hate me! Harper is akin to the wolf guarding the henhouse.
cosmo: "As for Harper not even showing up, I wasn't surprised, but I was disgusted. The guy should be shot and ..."
So did you vote Conservative?
I didn't the last two elections but might the next election. So far Harper has done what he set out to do and hasn't pandered to special interest groups such as the yuppies at the AIDS conference.
So did you vote Conservative?
I didn't the last two elections but might the next election. So far Harper has done what he set out to do and hasn't pandered to special interest groups such as the yuppies at the AIDS conference.
Not "pandering to special interest groups" isn't a big seller in my books because the classification is so broad that it crosses the lines of human rights. Being part of an AIDS conference hardly falls into that category anyway. It's a world health issue.
Having said that, I do agree with Tamarin and Bluealberta that we need to worry about our own people before heading out to save the rest of the world. Once our own back porch is cleaned, then we can turn our attention elsewhere and offer some true assistance. Trying to save the world while our own country is burning is a division of labour that means no one gets our full attention.
Am I my brother's keeper? Sure ... but I can't very well keep my brother until I learn to keep myself. I figure I need to start with me and work outward.
This may sound cruel, but I suspect there is some "natural selection" at work here. Darwin stuff. If a group of people are vicitimizing their own for supersitious reasons, maybe they're not quite with the program yet. It breaks my heart that the innocent are the ones to pick up the tab on this, but I can't save them from themselves. Yi ... better run for my asbestos suit after saying that.
Time Out
Posts: 252
August 23rd, 2006, 09:22 AM
So if I'm reading your last point correctly, its natural selection that a major part of the South African population is dying of AIDS? Because they believe in their tribal elders and their tribal elders believe their government. They deserve to die. Did I understand your position correctly?
So if I'm reading your last point correctly, its natural selection that a major part of the South African population is dying of AIDS? Because they believe in their tribal elders and their tribal elders believe their government. They deserve to die. Did I understand your position correctly?
Time Out
Posts: 252
August 23rd, 2006, 09:34 AM
Quote:
By the way, Hitler was all for natral selection.
Say what? Did I vote for Harper?????????????? I'd vote for him about the same time I'd vote for a reincarnation of Hitler. So no, I did not, have never and will never vote Conservative. Calberty, I'm a dyke. They hate me! Harper is akin to the wolf guarding the henhouse
Bright Spark
Posts: 313
August 23rd, 2006, 09:48 AM
I read the above posts and am more pleased than ever that Harper didn't participate in the farce. There's obviously more of a political agenda to such a conference than real health concerns. It's unfortunate the whacky left exploits the suffering of millions to stroke their own egos and try to score political points.
I read the above posts and am more pleased than ever that Harper didn't participate in the farce. There's obviously more of a political agenda to such a conference than real health concerns. It's unfortunate the whacky left exploits the suffering of millions to stroke their own egos and try to score political points.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,847
Location: Victoria, BC
Location: Victoria, BC
August 23rd, 2006, 10:42 AM
We can make efforts to help those societies become educated but we cannot force it upon them, no matter how abhorrent their practices are to us. And a society that routinely rapes babies isn't really one that is going to advance the human race as a whole.
It sounds cruel, but nature tends to be detached.
Quoting
Feronia ... yes and no. On the level of personal suffering, I find it too disturbing to even think about a great deal. I'm not heartless. From a more distant perspective, though, any civilization that does not progress will become obsolete. I didn't make the rules of natural selection, I don't even have to like them, but no matter how many flowers you put around it, bottom line is that they will either grow or die.
So if I'm reading your last point correctly, its natural selection that a major part of the South African population is dying of AIDS? Because they believe in their tribal elders and their tribal elders believe their government. They deserve to die. Did I understand your position correctly?
We can make efforts to help those societies become educated but we cannot force it upon them, no matter how abhorrent their practices are to us. And a society that routinely rapes babies isn't really one that is going to advance the human race as a whole.
It sounds cruel, but nature tends to be detached.
House Member
Posts: 2,843
Location: California
Location: California
August 23rd, 2006, 12:27 PM
When did compassion and empathy become "wacky left" characteristics anyways? The American president who has been the best funder of HIV treatment in Africa isn't a democrat, it's George W Bush. You can't get much more conservative than that, yet he has committed more money to fight HIV in the third world than any government leader EVER. Fighting HIV isn't about politics and anyone who would ignore the problem because of politics is being incredibly short sighted IMO.
Quoting
So, if I care about HIV in the third world I'm a wacky leftist? You don't understand me at all if that's what you think. I care about HIV because I care about health and I care about people who are suffering. That doesn't make me a special interest group. I also recognize that our security is enhanced when the rest of the world is stable. HIV is the biggest security threat much of the world has ever seen.
I read the above posts and am more pleased than ever that Harper didn't participate in the farce. There's obviously more of a political agenda to such a conference than real health concerns. It's unfortunate the whacky left exploits the suffering of millions to stroke their own egos and try to score political points.
When did compassion and empathy become "wacky left" characteristics anyways? The American president who has been the best funder of HIV treatment in Africa isn't a democrat, it's George W Bush. You can't get much more conservative than that, yet he has committed more money to fight HIV in the third world than any government leader EVER. Fighting HIV isn't about politics and anyone who would ignore the problem because of politics is being incredibly short sighted IMO.
