D.C. comedy site "The Daily Caller" has a hilarious piece today, extremely Swiftian and sophisticated in its humor and irony! It is by a former Tennessee District Attorney, named Joe Rehyansky. It goes like this: "I have never encountered my eminently sensible proposal, one that protects the patriotic urges of some homosexuals as well as the national interest on the basis of 'force readiness' arguments which should govern the thinking of those charged with implementing the defense of our country: Lesbians should be allowed to serve, gay men (hereafter 'gays') should not."...
November 24, 2010
"The Most Hilarious Piece You'll Ever Read About Gays in the Military."
Choire Sicha points at a really, really bad effort at satire:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
77 comments:
I like it, whether it's a joke or not:
Break out Oprah!
Dreadful piece, but the "Daily Caller" is frequently dreadful.
But you want really hilarious satire? Choire Sicha once flew the PLO flag over his timeshare beach house on (I think) Fire Island. How's that for cognitive dissonance?
My wife and I watched a sad documentary about AIDS a few years ago. An emaciated man in his mid-30s or so, not long for this world, said that he’d spent a lot of his free time on Fire Island and estimated that he’d had sex with “about 3,000 men.” My wife said, “I don’t think I’ve spoken to 3,000 people in my entire life.” I replied: “I’ll bet he hasn’t, either.” The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28% had 1,000 or more partners
I'm not getting the satire... Am I reading the right article?
The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28% had 1,000 or more partners
Yes, but if you believe that, you're just a bigot.
Right?
The AIDS epidemic was actually caused by President Reagan.
Haven't you seen "And the Band Played on?" Not to mention "Brokeback Mountain."
I'm wondering why it would be a joke. Women have always been the gatekeepers when it comes to sex. Men the keymasters (Ghostbusters, anyone?). So really why is it surprising that two keymasters would have little self-restraint? Yeah, as they age and mature things change, but in their 20s? Please.
So really why is it surprising that two keymasters would have little self-restraint? Yeah, as they age and mature things change, but in their 20s? Please.
Well, yes... but you're a bigot for noticing.
And, noticing that gay men gave us the AIDS epidemic makes you a homophobe.
I should add though that I think the concept of keymasters going wild in the military is more a joke than not. Frankly, I don't see a large influx of gay men joining the military should DADT go away. Butch lesbians, however . . .
Is there any site that is actually less interesting than The Awl?
WV: inwhildo - hmmmmmm
Homosexuals are serving even as we speak. But these are disciplined people who are willing to keep their private lives just that.
The issue is it's the kind of people who flaunt their stuff in things like the Castro festival (see zombietime.com) who want in. These are people who demand the right to be as publicly offensive as they can.
Fen said...
My wife and I watched a sad documentary about AIDS a few years ago. An emaciated man in his mid-30s or so, not long for this world, said that he’d spent a lot of his free time on Fire Island and estimated that he’d had sex with “about 3,000 men.” My wife said, “I don’t think I’ve spoken to 3,000 people in my entire life.” I replied: “I’ll bet he hasn’t, either.” The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28% had 1,000 or more partners
I'm not getting the satire... Am I reading the right article?
There was a 60 Minutes story profiling the original carrier of AIDS (this was about 25 years ago). Sounds exactly like him.
Nothing can be hilarious about gays in the military.
Most professions are self selecting. Very few conservatives are interested in social work, and liberals do not join the police force in large numbers. When I was in the service, I don't recall seeing any men who were obviously gay. I'm sure that there were gays, but they were circumspect. Many of the women were obviously lesbian, however......A more interesting topic, however, is the nature of lesbo sexuality. Are lesbians as determinedly promiscuous as gay men? Do they go through hundreds of partners a year? I would welcome and open and frank discussion on this important subject.
A more interesting topic, however, is the nature of lesbo sexuality. Are lesbians as determinedly promiscuous as gay men? Do they go through hundreds of partners a year? I would welcome and open and frank discussion on this important subject.
Old joke:
What's the gay man's definition of a second date:
Answer: What second date?
What's the lesbian's definition of a second date:
Answer: U-Haul!
How's that for open and frank?
Are lesbians as determinedly promiscuous as gay men?
This was never my impression of the lesbians (suspected and confirmed) that I knew both in college and the military. Of course, that was the early to mid 90's. These days, as even our teen-aged girls act more and more like men, I'm not so sure lesbian women aren't following suite.
FWIW, there was an NYC Public Health study done pre-AIDS that found homosexual men had a 10 times greater VD rate than heterosexual men and homosexual women had a 3 times greater VD rate than heterosexual women.
Make of that what you will.
That was satire?
I don't think that was the authors intent. Although I admit, I only read the first page because the tone was so condescending....."MY-IDEAS-ARE-BETTER-THAN-YOURS"
No, its not just you. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why its considered "hillarious satire"...
The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28% had 1,000 or more partners
Bell and Weinberg's sample was of Gay Men in San Francisco in 1970 who were sought out in places like bars and bath houses. Even the book suggests you shouldn't generalize it.
So unless you suggest that repeal of DADT will lead to a large influx of Gay Men from San Francisco ca. 1970's bath-house/bar scene....
Not seeing the "hilarious satire" either.
I have to agree with Fen; where's the satire. The writer in the DC editorial is serious. The Sicha article is ridiculing the first article.
Is the core concept of the first article (that man "act out" their sexuality more frequently) a controversial opinion?
My 1st pass comment on the DC piece is:
Uh women are now in the military so isn't the "cat out of the bag"?
So unless you suggest that repeal of DADT will lead to a large influx of Gay Men from San Francisco ca. 1970's bath-house/bar scene....
Ah...but can you prove it won't? Granted, the fashionistas will stay away simply because of the choice in cloth, but still...
Ah...but can you prove it won't?
Well, no. I can't prove that the Deathly Hallows don't exist either.
One of his arguments is certainly stupid -- the idea that ending DADT will lead to more gays in the military, and that will lead to more cases of AIDS through battlefield arm-to-arm blood transfusions.
I would think we'd probably want to test every recruit for AIDS and such, gay or not; so that's an issue independent of sexual orientation. And I doubt that we have enough direct transfusions these days to make this sort of danger statistically significant.
I'm having trouble finding the rest of his arguments so risible as to condescendingly refer to his article as "Swiftian" and satire.
I know where Althouse stands on DADT, but her agreeing with this "Choire Sicha" seems out-of-character.
I guess it isn't politically correct to state the obvious that there isn't any restraint between two gay men, not politically correct to women apparently.
Satire? As others have asked I may have read the wrong link? Or could it be some folks' misplace their logic gene when DADT is the topic.
Jesus, it stinks like Hulk Hogan's perineum after a long match in here. Funny that any post involving gay men tempts the usual suspects into posting dozens and dozens of comments about how much they hate hearing about gays and how awful gays are and how much the gays frighten the pussy soldiers we apparently have protecting us. You fellas think about rimming and buttseks and cocksucking more than I, and I think about those things almost constantly!
Admit it, you knuckleheads just want to strip down to your BVDs, pour Wesson oil all over yourselves and start wrastlin'! It would look like a cat trying to escape from under a pile of damp pizza dough!
And as for the promiscuity issue, you jealous motherfuckers would screw two dozen bimbos every night if any of 'em would let you close enough to grab 'hold of their titties! Some gay men are promiscuous because they can. Many of you would too, if you could. It's not the gay part that causes that, it's the man part. Or parts, as the case may be.
And, yet, Palladian, when I asked you whether you really wanted to be in the military, you never replied.
You gassed about gay marriage.
I suspect that this is all about twisting other people's arms with mock indignation over things you don't even want.
Nice try, though. You always do a good job of vicious projection. You're something of a master at it.
Some gay men are promiscuous because they can. Many of you would too, if you could. It's not the gay part that causes that, it's the man part. Or parts, as the case may be.
True enough.
But, that's why gay male sexual behavior is (and always has been) a serious public health issue, not the "homophobia" that gay activists try to claim it is.
Religious injunctions against homosexual undoubtedly developed precisely because of the public health risk.
Palladian said...
And as for the promiscuity issue, you jealous motherfuckers would screw two dozen bimbos every night if any of 'em would let you close enough to grab 'hold of their titties! Some gay men are promiscuous because they can.
When men have sex with women, children are born. That is what makes the world go around. When homos...
Forget it.
Really, AllenS, whenever men have sex with women, children are born?! Every single time?! Jesus H.W. Christ! That "population explosion" thing they always talked about in the '70s must really be true!
Or else you sorry sacks just ain't gettin' very much pussy!
Really, AllenS, whenever men have sex with women, children are born?!
Obviously not.
The problem is that the types of sex that promiscuous gay men engage in pose a very real public health risk.
Palladian, you keep responding to me as if I'm coming at you from the viewpoint of a prude.
I'm not. I was there and cheering when the bath houses first opened and were thriving in San Francisco. I wish that the kind of freedom and wildness that that era represented were possible.
I learned that the contrary is true by hard experience... by burying a hell of a lot of friends.
"But, that's why gay male sexual behavior is (and always has been) a serious public health issue, not the "homophobia" that gay activists try to claim it is."
I love when the supposedly "small government", "down with governmental interference into people's lives!" crowd suddenly cites concerns about "public health". Call Barry O. in the White House, you fellas ought to get along great, what with your disdain for gay men and your desire to use supposed concern for "public health" as an excuse to further meddle with and control people's lives.
"Religious injunctions against homosexual undoubtedly developed precisely because of the public health risk."
Same with religious injunctions against alcohol consumption, pork eating, female equality, mildew stains, menstrual flow and so on. BAN THESE DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH!
And as for the promiscuity issue, you jealous motherfuckers would screw two dozen bimbos every night if any of 'em
I think that was my point (and the author's, kinda)
Now I don't agree with the original author's conclusions but I do believe men want sex more than women.
(At least that's what my wife tells me.)
LOL at the "W" in "H.W."
And any day now(tm) AIDS will break out into the heterosexual population.
Really, it is really, really, really, really close to happening.
So all you heteros, you really, really, really, really are at risk.
John Henry
Same with religious injunctions against alcohol consumption, pork eating, female equality, mildew stains, menstrual flow and so on. BAN THESE DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH!
Hadn't notice that any of these things have recently caused a major international epidemic responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
st, I've had sex with lots of men and I'm not HIV positive nor have I ever had a venereal disease. It's called safe or safer sex. You're conflating unsafe, unprotected sex with promiscuity.
And anyway, so what? People are aware of the risks. Sexually-transmitted diseases are not airborne. You have to participate in sexual activity to get them. People by now know the risks and know how to protect themselves. If they're too stupid or unconcerned with their safety to be sensible and protect themselves or moderate their behavior, that's their problem.
That goes for straight people as well, who I see rutting and humping in public on many more occasions than I ever see gay men.
It's not 1982 any more, ST.
ST, AIDs is caused by a virus, not by gay people. AIDS in Africa, where it's still an epidemic, is almost exclusively transmitted through heterosexual intercourse.
My experience in the military—24 years—was that lesbians caused more trouble that gay men. Gay men usually kept a low profile. Lesbians were aggressive, assertive, and obnoxious. They used the fact that they were women to claim special privileges and would claim sexual harassment against anyone who denied them. They harassed heterosexual females and tried to force them into relationships with them. If they had any authority they abused it for personal gain.
It's not 1982 any more, ST.
What happened in 1982 happened because of this cycle of forgetting that you represent.
This is a sort of eternal cycle of human experience.
A generation or two from now, the cause of the AIDS epidemic will be entirely forgotten.
What do you think I'm proposing? The truth is, absolutely nothing except facing the truth.
The truth is that the kinds of sex that a lot of gay men like represent a threat to public health. Ancient civilizations knew this. Thus, the religious proscriptions against the behavior.
It's happened repeatedly throughout human history.
All I'm arguing against hubris. The wisdom of the past is not some sort of bigotry. I used to believe that, too. I was wrong.
What do you do with that knowledge? Damned if I know.
Thanks, Meade. It's good to know there's still a couple of sentient beings who read the comments.
verification word: infecta (!!!)
Italian: If-a you keep-a screwing in-a da bushes, you-a gonna infecta you'self with-a disease!
ST, AIDs is caused by a virus, not by gay people. AIDS in Africa, where it's still an epidemic, is almost exclusively transmitted through heterosexual intercourse.
There's no doubt about that. But, I think it's more complicated than that.
There is considerably confusion in black culture about what is and isn't homosexual behavior. (This is even more true in Filipino culture, where a man who's behavior is predominantly hetero is not viewed as even engaging in homo behavior when he has sex with men.)
Prostitution operates in a very different way in African culture. And many African cultures are polygynous. That means a woman may have many "husbands," and that those husbands may frequent both male and female prostitutes.
"My experience in the military—24 years—was that lesbians caused more trouble that gay men."
Lesbians always cause more trouble than gay men, which is logical since women always cause more trouble than men.
in Africa, where it's still an epidemic, is almost exclusively transmitted through immoralheterosexual intercourse
/fixed
AIDS in Africa is transmitted by female prostitution to married village men visiting the cities for business/trade who go back home to infect their wives.
AIDS is America is transmitted primarily by bisexual men serving as bottoms for males who then spread it to the women they sleep with.
You can argue whether or not society's laws are nothing more than a codification of morality to protect itself. But lets not pretend there's not a moral component to the spread of this disease.
Palladian said...
Really, AllenS, whenever men have sex with women, children are born?! Every single time?!
Did I say "every single time"? No, I didn't say that.
Battlefield blood donations are still routine, and are the rule in any kind of mass casualty scenario. The military has made advances in logistics that make it easier for them to move prescreened blood to the battlefield and store it there for a period of time, but it is not cost effective to store more than a baseline supply at combat surgical centers. For anything above the baseline, medics on the scene still get nearby soldiers to donate blood.
The use of soldier-donated blood on the battlefield has decreased 80 percent since 2007. Some people attribute the decrease to increases in technology, but their idiots. The decrease is because casualties have decreased over 80 percent in Iraq, and so have returned to baseline levels.
The potential HIV pollution of the blood supply among soldiers is an absolutely legitimate concern, although that can be somewhat alleviated by telling gay troops not to give blood.
I guess some other soldier can pick up the slack.
WV: menpeu
er, they're. Not "their."
The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners
White Americans are racially prejudiced against black people. My evidence for this is an unrefuted 1964 Gallup poll showing that 65% of Americans would be unwilling to vote for a black man for President, even if he was otherwise completely qualified.
Oddly enough, hardly anyone in America is opposed to Barack Obama. My evidence for this is an unrefuted poll from February of 2009 showing only 19% of Americans have unfavorable opinions of Obama.
The potential HIV pollution of the blood supply among soldiers is an absolutely legitimate concern, although that can be somewhat alleviated by telling gay troops not to give blood.
Or by realizing that "gay" and "HIV+" are not synonyms.
The military screens for all manner of diseases, HIV included, upon induction. Updated tests are given yearly, which is a good thing considering how popular hookers are with the troops.
Rev (2:45) -- excellent.
If contamination of the blood supply in the military were an issue, wouldn't we know about that already? If 3% of male service members are homosexual (an estimate I recently saw -- no idea of the accuracy) and if HIV were significantly higher among the gays, wouldn't that become apparent in short order?
So, for those who believe that protecting the blood supply is a good argument for keeping DADT: exactly how is it that the blood supply will be endangered? Is it because gays in the military currently pose a risk that will be multiplied because the gay population in the military will grow or is it that removal of DADT will cause an increase in the frequency of HIV infection among military gays, or is it some combination?
No, not excellent
If HIV via prostitutes is enough of a concern to warrant testing, yearly testing is about as useful as a TSA screening.
And my LAV crews were aligned towards blood type as much as possible.
I tried to make this comment before, without success -- try again.
The editorial in the Daily Caller does not appear to be satire. The satire seems to be by the author of the linked article who called the Daily Caller article satire with an apparent straight face. Notice also that the author called the Daily Caller a "comedy site." I've never looked at the Daily Caller before, but it doesn't look like comedy to me.
But hey, what do we care if one Marine brings HIV back to his wife and kids, this is about giving Gays the right to marry.
But hey, what do we care if one Marine brings HIV back to his wife and kids, this is about giving Gays the right to marry.
As we all know how HIV is transmitted, married marines included, how is it that ending DADT will increase the probability that a marine will bring HIV back to his wife and kids? To his kids? How does that work? Are we expecting repeal of DADT to result in married marines being more likely to engage in risky behavior both with other military members and with their children?
If you are claiming that ending DADT will make battle field blood transfusions more dangerous, you need to first establish the current danger level. What is it?
Palladian said: "...And as for the promiscuity issue, you jealous motherfuckers would screw two dozen bimbos every night if any of 'em would let you..."
That's exactly what the author of the Daily Caller piece said, Palladian. Other than his equating "gay" with "AIDS-infected", and his relying on some pretty dated and dubious studies for his seemingly outrageous number-of-partner stats, I can't find all that much objectionable in what he says.
Many gay men find the male form attractive, by the definition of gay -- whether the male form in question is gay or straight often doesn't enter into it. Men are visually stimulated horny bastards, be they male or straight.
And straight men might be just as uncomfortable showering with gay men as straight women would be if they were forced to shower with straight men.
This seems a reasonable argument to me.
Frankly, I think that most of the Soros-funded anti-DADT out there is relying on this simple self-evident argument in their hope that ending DADT will damage the US military by making it a less attractive option for potential recruits. Otherwise they wouldn't give a warm shit one way or the other.
Or by realizing that "gay" and "HIV+" are not synonyms.
Who said they are?
The correlation between gay and HIV+, however, is high enough in America to be a public health concern.
Or do you think HIV is just not an issue among gay men?
The correlation coefficient is too high to ignore, for the same reason the military discharges fat people. It's not because they don't look good in uniforms. It's because the correlation between fat people and expensive diseases later in life causes the military to force them out rather than let them retire and get health care on the military's dime.
Gay men and HIV+ has a higher correlation coefficient than straight men and HIV+.
That's not a value judgment. That's just a fact.
WV: Schalla. In schalla.
BTW, the Army currently places all HIV+ troops in a non-deployable status. Having a sizable percentage of these troops would constitute a readiness issue. I believe that the HIV tests are required for Army personnel every six months as well.
wv: bugagi
Further, the introduction of just a few HIV+ gay troops into the military community would cause a spread of the disease. The same is true of every other communicable disease as well, from meningitis to measles to chicken pox to influenza. A barracks outbreak of any communicable disease is a significant problem.
Yes, people can argue that these 18 to 25 year old men are professionals and they wouldn't be sexually active with their peers.
And these people would be utter friggin' morons.
No, not excellent
He was referring to my earlier post.
If HIV via prostitutes is enough of a concern to warrant testing, yearly testing is about as useful as a TSA screening.
Well, no. Identifying an infected individual within a year of infection is obviously useful. It just isn't as useful as identifying them right away.
But the military also provides for STD screening for members who think they may have come in contact with one. So if you get drunk on leave and let a male hooker bone you in the ass without a condom, you can get that HIV test a lot sooner.
Who said they are?
You. You said that adding gay people to the military would increase the risk of HIV infection through blood transfusion. The probability of HIV infection from a blood transfusion is a function of the HIV+ status of the donors. It is not a function of their sexual orientation.
Gay men and HIV+ has a higher correlation coefficient than straight men and HIV+.
Like I pointed out, enlistees are screened for the disease. Ergo enlisted gay men will have the same level of infection as enlisted straight men: 0%.
Really, AllenS, whenever men have sex with women, children are born?! Every single time?!
Um, nobody said that.
But I think you should go on pretending the meaning of what was said wasn't clear.
by realizing that "gay" and "HIV+" are not synonyms.
Er, gay male and HIV are synonymous.
There are, no doubt, HIV+ gay service members right now. Some have acquired the virus since enlisting and some may have been false negatives when enlisting.
Current practice is to test every two years. HIV+ service members are not automatically discharged though it seems there are restrictions on their service and it appears that if a service member turns up HIV+ during the first enlistment term, re-enlistment is forbidden.
So, there are currently HIV+ male homosexuals serving in the military and their presence has not caused any sort of HIV epidemic within the military either through tainted blood or through rampant risky behavior. Else, testing would be more frequent and HIV+ service members would be segregated/discharged.
Repealing DADT (and it will be repealed within the next couple years, at most, no matter how anybody feels about that) won't change any of this. This is what is known around the water cooler as a red herring.
So, some people think that because gay men are more likely to be HIV+ than are hetero men that gay men should be prevented from serving openly in the military.
Let's see where this goes: straight women are more likely to be HIV+ then homosexual women, therefore, straight women should not be permitted to serve openly. Also, HIV+ straight women can transmit the disease to males while lesbians typically do not (even in the odd case in which a lesbian would be infected).
Palladian, for the most part the so-called heterosexual AIDS in Africa is not AIDS. At least not as we understand it.
In the US and the West a diagnosis of AIDS requires the presence of HIV. Got TB and HIV? You've got AIDS. Got TB but no HIV? You are still every bit as sick and may well die. But you do not have AIDS.
Most of the people who supposedly have AIDS in Africa have never been tested for HIV. Many (most?) of them, when tested, turn out not to have the HIV.
AIDS in Africa is diagnosed by the presence of loss of weight, diarhea and some other symptoms that can be caused by any number of diseases endemic in Africa. Source WHO.
This is not to say they are not extremely sick. They are. It is not to say they do not need help, they do and Bush sent billion$ of our dollars to Africa to help them. (I supported that help and hope Obama continues it)
But they don't have AIDS.
AIDS is transmitted by anal sex and needle sharing, almost exclusively. It is extremely hard, though not impossible to transmit otherwise.
We have been told for 30 years now that it is on the verge of breaking out among heterosexuals.
Hasn't happened yet.
Isn't likely to.
John Henry
Like I pointed out, enlistees are screened for the disease. Ergo enlisted gay men will have the same level of infection as enlisted straight men: 0%.
Wrong.
So, there are currently HIV+ male homosexuals serving in the military and their presence has not caused any sort of HIV epidemic within the military either through tainted blood or through rampant risky behavior.
Correct. That is because we sharply limit the number of gays in the military. The current policy is working.
WV: nailden
Ergo enlisted gay men will have the same level of infection as enlisted straight men: 0%.
You mean except for when they contract HIV while they're enlisted, right?
Yes. But that's a HUGE exception, because of the rate of new infections in the most relevant age groups.
Obviously, we're discounting any false negatives in the testing/screening process, as well. I don't know how large that number is.
But they don't have AIDS.
Suffice it to say that there are good reasons why John didn't provide any supporting links for any of his delusions.
Fair enough Revenant, you want links? (Are you going to provide some yourself now?)
Here is the definition/diagnosis of AIDS per WHO (UN World Health Organization)
http://www.who.int/hiv/strategic/en/bangui1985report.pdf
As for heterosexual AIDS in the US, how about the Centers for Diesease Control:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2008report/pdf/2008SurveillanceReport.pdf
Back to you. I hope you will post some links to show that lots of "AIDS" patients in Africa are HIV positive vs how many are simply diagnosed via the WHO definition.
And that there is a risk of non-needle sharing heterosexual transmission in the US.
I await with bated breath.
John Henry
Here is the definition/diagnosis of AIDS per WHO (UN World Health Organization)
Ok. Here was your claim:
AIDS in Africa is diagnosed by the presence of loss of weight, diarhea and some other symptoms that can be caused by any number of diseases endemic in Africa. Source WHO.
From the WHO report:
Given that these symptoms are not specific, they will not be recognized as suggestive
of AIDS until other possible causes have been ruled out.
So your claim was completely wrong. They are NOT using those things to identify AIDS sufferers -- they were using those symptoms to identify the group of people who *might* have AIDS, but not labeling them as actually having AIDS until further analysis was done.
All of this is moot, of course, because -- as you'd have noticed, if you'd read more carefully -- this report is from 35 years ago, only a year after the HIV virus had been identified and a year before the HIV-2 virus that causes most African AIDS cases was identified. So even if you'd read the file correctly, your information would be decades out of date. HIV infection spread for decades in Africa before it made the jump to the western world. The man we call "patient zero" is just the person who introduced it to the United States, not the person who introduced it to humanity.
Up to date information about international AIDS/HIV statistics is available here.
Back to you. I hope you will post some links to show that lots of "AIDS" patients in Africa are HIV positive vs how many are simply diagnosed via the WHO definition.
As I've shown, none were ever diagnosed via your confused version of "the WHO definition". Furthermore, the WHO article you cite was about identifying people with AIDS, not identifying HIV; they barely knew HIV existed then.
John,
First of all, your WHO document is from 1985, a year before the HIV-2 virus that causes most African AIDS cases was identified and a year after the HIV-1 virus that causes most non-African cases was identified. Here is information on African AIDS that isn't from 35 years ago.
Secondly, even for 1985 your claim is wrong. From the WHO document:
Given that these symptoms are not specific, they will not be recognized as suggestive
of AIDS until other possible causes have been ruled out.
It plainly states that the conditions you cited are reasons to *suspect* AIDS but not sufficient for diagnosis. It states later in the document:
It should be noted that this pilot study must, of necessity, include serological
tests for the detection of antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III
LAV and HTLV-III were the early names for HIV, in case you didn't know.
Back to you. I hope you will post some links to show that lots of "AIDS" patients in Africa are HIV positive vs how many are simply diagnosed via the WHO definition.
Since you were polite enough to post the WHO link that plainly states that HIV tests are necessary for identifying African AIDS sufferers, there isn't really much need for me to do the same. But the UNAIDS link, above, has good information for you.
And that there is a risk of non-needle sharing heterosexual transmission in the US.
According to the CDC statistics for 2008, 32% (11413 of 37110) of new United States HIV infections were from heterosexual sexual contact, as were 17% (188585 of 1063778) of all United States HIV infections to date.
Hm, I've posted this twice. Third time's the charm?
John,
Please read the WHO document you posted a link to. Note the following three facts:
(1): It is from 35 years ago, a year after the HIV-1 virus was identified and a year before the HIV-2 virus (the one that's common in Africa) was identified.
(2): It plainly states, in regard to the diarrohea/weight loss/etc test, "given that these symptoms are not specific, they will not be recognized as suggestive
of AIDS until other possible causes have been ruled out". In case you had a hard time understanding that, I'll simplify: "we won't count a person as having AIDS just because they have those symptoms". So we see right there that your claim, in addition to being 35 years out of date, wouldn't even have been accurate 35 years ago.
(3): The report clearly states that their study of AIDS in Africa "must, of necessity, include serological
tests for the detection of antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III". LAV and HTLV-III were the old names for HIV. In case you have a hard time understanding *that*, it means "of course, we'll have to test them for HIV too".
And that there is a risk of non-needle sharing heterosexual transmission in the US.
According to the CDC link you provided, 17% of American AIDS cases, and 32% of new infections, are the result of heterosexual sexual contact.
In closing, thank you for providing the links to refute your own claims. It saved me the trouble of looking them up myself.
Post a Comment