Hetero HIV epidemic unlikely outside of Africa

I've been saying this all along, outside Africa there is a very slim chance that Heteros can be infected with HIV. There was a simnilar posting made around 1997 by one of the mainstream newsxpapers in Britain, basically an apology that they lied about the scale of the pandemic and the effect it would have on hetrosexuals. They lied to protect the three main groups causing this vile disease, Homosexual men, junkies and sex workers.

INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY: Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

Yes... we all knew this!

Muppet!

Dr De Cock - he he he he he!

As a heterosexual who is totally into chicks and boobs and stuff, let me just say that I am glad I can go back to accidentally impregnating women and failing to pay child support.

Woohoo! Now we can throw away those pesky condoms!

what's a condom?

When the CIA engineered AIDS they made sure that only homosexuals, blacks, and bigfoots could become infected.

Homosexual blacks, or homosexuals and blacks??? Clever CIA

Pfff... Typical Obama supporter!

I read the article yesterday and it has to be easily one opf the most deceptive pieces of journalism I have ever read. De Cock is outspoken and has a habit of overstating cases bt the Indy have gone even further and twisted the conclusions for their own sensationalist ends.

De Cock was attacking certain political doomsayers who had a habit of overstating risks for political ends with little scientific evidence. He was NOT saying that HIV is only a disease of drug users and homos as the OP (in typical style) implies. In subsaharan Africa, southern Italy, parts of Spain, London and Edinburgh - HIV is indeed largely a disease of heterosexual transmission.

Were you able to type the phrase "de cock is outspoken" without snickering?

Absolute Bollox! It is rife in the Gay community, Junkie Community and Sex Worker community in all the cities you mentioned. The cancer of society.

Please prove otherwise, that in Edinburgh for example, more Heteros have become infected who haven't had dealings with one of the Three cancers above.

Just to be 100% clear, are you saying that gays (etc.) are the cancer of society?

The ones who are HIV positive and continue to have unprotected sex are in my opinion yes.

So non HIV infested gays, or abstentious infested gays are not cancerous?

What about heterosexual men (in Africa in particular) who refuse to wear condoms because they feel it impinges on their masculinity?

Nice try, you should use this as your avatar.

If they feel (in an educated land) that a condom impinges their masculinity and decide NOT to wear one during a spot of uphill gardening (as un-masculine as one can be!!), then they deserve the disease, sorry but the words shit for brains spring to mind.

But then, you seem to have your continents mixed up a wee bit, we're talking about Europe here, not Africa

Oh and you are the expert are you numbnuts? You show repeatedly a copmplete faiilure to do anything other than latch onto factoids that confirm your huge prejudices without any recourse to verifiable information. What qualifies you to say it is bollox? Have you ever been to a World AIDS Congresses? Do you have a PHD and postdoctoral experience relating to this area? Were you ever responsible for managing a cohort study of heterosexuals with HIV? I rather doubt you have any qualifications at all to be an authority on this subject you imbecile. I however can answer yes to all three.


When I managed research on the Edinburgh cohort the initial heterosxual infections, seen from 1983 onwards, had indeed been mainly the partners of drug users or haemophiliacs and in some cases also the partners of people infected through blood transfusion. However, by 1992 we were starting to see new infections relating to second and third generation infections far removed from the original risk group. By the time I left in 1997, heterosexual rates of infection had overtaken drug users, gay men and haemophiliacs in Edinburgh.

Now, I would guess that the rates of gay infection, which were actually low in Edinburgh compared with other areas of the UK, have probably crept up. But I rathzer doubt the rate of infection of heterosexual contacts has changed downwards.

or because they think wearing one is sinning against god?

As a heterosexual vegetarian, I doubly resent your post. Well done! And its only Monday.

If God had wanted us to have unprotected sex he wouldn't have invented the condom tree.

Blah blah blah bollox, you cite 1983 onwards, that was 25 year ago dear!!! Please show me a link to anything credible that proves what you spout. You won't be able to, simply because it's not the case. The only Heteros you'll find that have become infected with HIV have had sex with one of the groups above, IDU in particular.

How many of your "hetero" infected have...

1) Slept unknowingly with an IDU without protection (ignorance)
or
2) Lied about their past to protect current partners/wives (The, "I caught it off a toilet seat" brigade)

A link proving what you say is all I ask. Until then, the facts are still staring you in the face, the ONLY three risk groups are

IDUs
Sex Workers
Homosexuals

I was talking about heterosexuals in Africa, you are just displaying willful ignorance by focussing on Europe, AIDS is a global disease, without boundaries.

I sat next to a homosexual on a tram once but I wasn't wearing a condom. Should I go and get tested?

By your own admission the other risk group is people having sex with somebody who has had sex with somebody in those groups.

How much risk do you want to take with your life?

Probably.

People have unprotected sex every day unknowingly with HIV infected persons. Just because you sleep with them does not automatically mean you'll contract the disease. In fact, the rate of contraction is very low. It must enter your bloodstream, ie through a vien, anal passage or a cut/ulcer/wart. Provided your member is intact after a spot of horizontal hetero refreshment, as a man you have very little to worry about. HIV is not transmitted through pores.

Indeed, the risk is low, but not 0. Your tadger, do what you will with it.

Blimey. Thank fuck I'm only reading this, and not listening to you say it. Apparently there is a new strain of HIV about - called hearing AIDS, and you get it from listening to arseholes like you.

Boom boom. Thank you very much, I'm here all week.

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
George Bernard Shaw

learn to read, imbecile. I said the first infections. HIV entered Edinburgh around the summer of 1983 through needle sharing among drug users (the point of entry was a bisexual barman who had lived in New York who moved to Edinburgh). The first heterosexual cases started happening almost immediately.



the first cases were indeed the partners of IDUs. The next group were men who had sex with prostitutes (as some of the prostitutes were IDUs or many of the partners of IDUs were prostitutes). Then the partners of these men. It did not take long before there were tracebale heterosexual cases that were several points removed from IDUs. I joined the study in 1994 and we certainly had quite a few patients in that category even then


some unquestionably do lie. Which is why my study only focused on those whose route of transmission was verifiable and plausible.


Okay, suggest you look this peer-reviewed academic paper up:

"Prevalence of HIV-1 infection among heterosexual men and women attending genitourinary clinics in Scotland: unlinked anonymous testing". Scott G, Goldberg D, Weir M, Cameron S, Peutherer J, Carrington D, Follett E, Leadbetter G, Scoular A.
BMJ. 1997 Nov 15;315(7118):1281-2

Thing is there is nothing objective at all in your approach djgrazy. You start from the position of blind red hatred of all gay people and a passionate wish to see them suffer and then you latch on to anything to back up that position. You are utterly despicable in my books.

And I watched Brokeback Mountain once and at one point had to remove my glasses to scratch my eye. Luckily the doctor put me in the all clear.

Fixed that for you. No thanks necessary.

Excellent thread btw. I thought TT had become a little dull recently, but this new influx of hatred, bad research and mud flinging has restored my basic faith in human nature.

Next week: Why South Africans Blow Goats.

I suggest everyone stops posting on this thread now and starve the twat grazy of the attention that he obviously needs.

What if were hetero, and got HIV from shagging monkeys - presumably whilst really really drunk, or on the off chance that the monkey had a really bloody good disguise, and you thought it was Pamela Anderson. I think that eventuality has been totally overlooked in this thread.

Don't try and bring reason into the discussion DR that's just wrong. you know dj gazy can't handle it.

Hang on...

Is someone trying to say that a viris, which by its nature is not specialised into targeting something as abstract (to a virus) as sexual preferance would NOT just jump around infecting any human it came into...??

Seems to me saying that the virus is the problem of of any one particular human group (a notion also quite abtract to a virus9 is shoving your head up where you are saying people shouldnt shove other things..your arse.

Gay men sleep with gay men, if they get the disease then thats crap. If it was as simple as that then we would all be in the clear except for gay men having sex without protection.

However, IDU's span all sexual groups and as such we do not have a nice chart of separate circles, all separate, nice and tidy.

We have venn diagrams with lots of interlocking circles in which, in the very middle are the group of people with aids. These people have access to anyone in the same sexual group they stand (male and female hetro - same group).

What you have is a very complicated grouping of people along sexual preference (with IDU being included as group) where in the middle are also people with aids.

As such its possible for someone who does not know an IDU to get aids from someone, there could be 5 people inbetween the person and the original infecion.

Its shit, its crap, but if you want to stay dry dont splash around in puddles without your wellies.

Most of all, do not think that by believing you cannot get aids as you are not in a risk group places some kind of forcefield around you.. It doesnt and there are a lot of people who have aids who didnt think they could be infected.

Its just like smoking and lung cancer or anything else..It can't happen to me...Can it?

And who can honestly say that they've never done this?

Why not just say 'your arse' in the first place?

Well i've never shagged one that I thought was Pamela Anderson

You clearly don't drink enough then. What are you a poof or summat?

and then we have FirstCtizen and Iain, whos usernames should have bandwagon underthem instead of members, niether of whom have added anything constructive to the debate at all.

So I posted an article from the Idependent that states "Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits" This piece of journalism explains that outwith Africa, Heteros have little chance of being struck by HIV provided they don't belong to one of the Three danger groups.

Homosexual Males
Introvenous Drug Users
and
Sex Workers both Male & Female.

This is a belief I've upheld for almost 20 years as it was explained to me BY a leading researcher at Glasgow Uni around 1989, at a time when I was working in the Balaerics as a DJ and somewhat promiscuous. The hype got to me and I wanted to know if I was in danger, I was told then about the Three danger groups by both my doctor (Who advised me not to have an HIV test) and a good friend who was leading a team in HIV research at Glasgow Uni at the time. Both ruled me out on the information above, that was 1989!

Now I'm not saying in any way shape or form that Heteros can't contract HIV, of course it's possible, however the numbers are very small compared to the numbers from the Three categories above and they certainly don't amount to a PANDEMIC among heteros, which is what we were all told was coming.

Which is EXACTLY what the report says.

Anyone catch the footy last night?

If you were a DJ and banging the kind of club skanks that DJs are generally exposed to, I think the iv drug use group was at least a couple degrees away from whoever you were nailing.

I though Polen were a bit loose at the back.

Serious question - why would a doctor do that? As another question, is having had an HIV test still considered "bad" in some places, or by some insurance companies, on a sort of "no smoke without fire" principle?

Club skanks rule! and anyway that was the whole point of my post, after doing a three figure sum of skanks and returning home for the winter, getting two colds in the space of a month was enough to convince me to go to the docs.

There is always a very slim danger, but if you watch who you're nailing, steer clear of certain types and cover up when necessary, HIV won't be a problem. I'm living proof!

Oh and by the way, several of said club skanks got it up the wrong un !

Quite simply. in 1989 you were required to answer YES or NO to the question have you had an AIDS test. This was for Insurance, mortgages and the like. Tick YES and it was like telling the insurance company you were in to indoor hang gliding/ sulfuric acid surfing. You were placed in a high risk group. My doctor advised me not to proceed with this as 1) the chances of me having HIV were slim due to me not belonging to the risk groups and 2) Having such a test could have long reaching social implications in gaining insurance etc.