NJ Targets HIV transmissions

[Ken]

Again, even though I'm back for the holidays, I am really glad I'm not in this state anymore. Unbelievable that an "acting" governer can do this while the real governer is "out of the country".

Coming on the heals of mandating the Flu vaccine, this is just an attack on personal freedoms, let alone, the fact that HIV is an extremely useless indicator of AIDS infection. Over 70 conditions can cause a person to be HIV positive. There is also no correlation to a person having HIV and contracting AIDS.

I'm sure the usual suspects will be just fine with this. :doh:


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2007/dec/26/122609150.html

[China]

Over 70 conditions can cause a person to be HIV positive. There is also no correlation to a person having HIV and contracting AIDS.



Um, what? Do you mean that over 70 conditions can cause AIDS? As far as know only the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes people to be HIV positive.

[Ken]

Um, what? Do you mean that over 70 conditions can cause AIDS? As far as know only the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes people to be HIV positive.
No, I mean over 70 conditions can cause false HIV positives.

The theory is HIV is the precursor to AIDS.

[China]

Then your original statement is false. Over 70 conditions do not cause a person to be HIV positive. Over 70 conditions may result in a false positive HIV test. There are confirmatory (e.g., PCR) tests that can reveal false positives from the initial testing. And HIV is quite often a precursor to AIDS.

[Larry]

No, I mean over 70 conditions can cause false HIV positives.

The theory is HIV is the precursor to AIDS.

So you're claiming that there are people who have AIDS, but not HIV?

[mel25]

So you're claiming that there are people who have AIDS, but not HIV?

i could be wrong, but i think the opposite of that is possible. people can have HIV, but not AIDS. i don't think it's considered AIDS until the immune system gets very low, but until then, it's just HIV.

[Larry]

i could be wrong, but i think the opposite of that is possible. people can have HIV, but not AIDS. i don't think it's considered AIDS until the immune system gets very low, but until then, it's just HIV.

That's what I understood, too.

But that doesn't jibe with the claim of "no correlation". Seems to me, if 100% of people with AIDS have HIV, then that's one heck of a correlation.

[mel25]

That's what I understood, too.

But that doesn't jibe with the claim of "no correlation". Seems to me, if 100% of people with AIDS have HIV, then that's one heck of a correlation.

yeah, i actually just re-read what you were responding too. it's so much of a correlation that a lot of people don't know the difference lol.

[Bang]

It doesn't make any difference or not, as we all know ANY governmental involvement signifies totalitarianism and dictatorship, not to mention racial and ethnic cleansing, removal of all human rights, and becoming Nazi Germany.
The very fact that they want to identify and treat expectant mothers with an incurable communicable disease that they are passing on to their unborn children which just so happens to turn deadly in a tremendous number of cases is enough to make me want to puke.
Wanting to treat kids. Who the hell do they think they are?

~Barf

[Ken]

Instead of argueing with me, here is a site I go to that is informative on the subject.

www.helpforhiv.com


Maybe I'm crazy, but there are a ton of doctors who think like me.

[Larry]

It doesn't make any difference or not, as we all know ANY governmental involvement signifies totalitarianism and dictatorship, not to mention racial and ethnic cleansing, removal of all human rights, and becoming Nazi Germany.
The very fact that they want to identify and treat expectant mothers with an incurable communicable disease that they are passing on to their unborn children which just so happens to turn deadly in a tremendous number of cases is enough to make me want to puke.
Wanting to treat kids. Who the hell do they think they are?

~Barf

Now, I'll point out that the claim that, way back during Reagan, I was one of those people seeing government conspiracies when Reagan proposed a national database of the HIV positive.

A lot of things have changed since then. People aren't having their homes firebombed because people found out that someone with AIDS lived there. People are no longer closing public swimming pools and grocery stores because of rumors that someone with AIDS went there, once.

And some (kind of) treatment actually exists.

[Larry]

Instead of argueing with me, here is a site I go to that is informative on the subject.

www.helpforhiv.com


Maybe I'm crazy, but there are a ton of doctors who think like me.

I'm seeing a few statements on that page that look interesting to me, and an awful lot that just scream "they're attempting to lie, here" at me.

(And I haven't seen a response to me challenging you claim of "no correlation between HIV and AIDS".)

[Bang]

Now, I'll point out that the claim that, way back during Reagan, I was one of those people seeing government conspiracies when Reagan proposed a national database of the HIV positive.

A lot of things have changed since then. People aren't having their homes firebombed because people found out that someone with AIDS lived there. People are no longer closing public swimming pools and grocery stores because of rumors that someone with AIDS went there, once.

And some (kind of) treatment actually exists.


I'm with you, Larry. As you may have noticed in my years of posting here, I have a healthy mistrust of our government and I always view everything with the skeptical eye as well.
But sometimes there are some things that DO have the common good of us all at heart. The boogieman isn't under EVERY bed.
And as you pointed out, we have the benefit of two decades of social adjustment and education and practical experience to say I think we can handle knowing and not knowing who has it, or any other communicable incurable and potentially lethal disease that puts the public at risk.
And if it helps the medical community better treat the public health, including the health of these HIV patients, what is the harm?

~Bang

[Burgundy Burner]

Again, even though I'm back for the holidays, I am really glad I'm not in this state anymore. Unbelievable that an "acting" governer can do this while the real governer is "out of the country".

We have a real governor in New Jersey??? Didn't know.

[Ken]

I'm seeing a few statements on that page that look interesting to me, and an awful lot that just scream "they're attempting to lie, here" at me.

(And I haven't seen a response to me challenging you claim of "no correlation between HIV and AIDS".)
There is a link towards the bottom that reads "no scientific study that proves HIV causes AIDS".

There are also numerous other areas of that site that have personal testimonies from people, doctors, and studies.

I would just say to read it, consider it, and remember it.


That is all.

[Ken]

We have a real governor in New Jersey??? Didn't know.
Good point! :cheers:

[Larry]

There is a link towards the bottom that reads "no scientific study that proves HIV causes AIDS".

Which is not at all the same thing as "no correlation".

As dozens of paid liars will tell you, there's no scientific proof that smoking causes cancer, either.

"No proof that A causes B" simply means "No one has explained how A leads to B in every case, in sufficient detail to satisfy me".

There is no scientific proof that winning in the playoffs leads to the Lombardi trophy. But 100% of the trophy recipients have won in the playoffs.