Asymmetrical Information

HIV is a relatively simple virus. The problem is that, as a rough rule of thumb, the simpler a virus is, the more ancient it is, and the more ancient it is, the more it has survived, and the more it has survived, the more likely it will survive whatever else we throw at it.

Could be worse: could be Ebola Zaire. Now that's one very simple, and therefore very scary, virus.

What could be worse is a virus that progresses more slowly and is resistant. With a quicker progression, we at least can identify it. The real tragedy with AIDS was that it took a long time for symptoms to show so you had otherwise healthy people passing the virus, and able to pass it more often. A virus that kills you quickly has a hard time moving on.

Before panicking, consult Dean Esmay.

1 - EVEN SIMPLER SOLUTION- NO GAY SEX OR IV SHARING OF NEEDLES - LITTLE OR NO AIDS

---------------------------------

EASON JORDAN QUITS AND SCURRIES AWAY ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON. CHUCKLE

LYNNE STEWART -- CONVICTED! GAHFAW, GIGGLE!

THE REPUDIATIONS CONTINUES... AND PICKS UP SPEED!
(just as I told you it would)
thedaddy

Megan, your link is opening onto a blank page. And on something like this, I always want to follow the link and do more research, because there are about 10 pieces of hysterical mis-reporting for every scientifically sound report.

But drug-immune AIDS was entirely expected. Adaptation is what the HIV virus does. The rapid progression, if it actually progresses rapidly in otherwise healthy people, is both good and bad news - bad for the poor people that catch it, good for the rest of us because they don't get much chance to pass it on. But it doesn't take a new version of HIV to kill in a few months if someone was in terrible shape before they caught it. (And this is another reason it took so long to recognize AIDS as a new disease - those that died first lived extremely unhealthy lives that left them vulnerable to any infection that happened along.)

Bottom line with STD is that they are easy to avoid. No sex with strangers and frequent testing are a start. The problem is that after cures were developed for things like syphillis, which like AIDS caused a lingering and unpleasant death, people forgot that risky lifestyles carried penalties. One generation was all it took.

Sigh. No, they never did discover any new strain of HIV because they don't have a single frigging clue as to what the actual HIV looks like in the first place. Needless to say, they've never firmly characterised it either.

Why do I make this shocking statement? Because there's never been an EM picture of a colony of isolated HIV. Ever. People can g**gle it up. Look for isolated, HIV, photos. NOTHING. Single enhanced scans and computer graphics, and 'action pics' don't cut it. They needed a sample of thousands of pure HIV cultivated from an AIDS patient, and they NEVER got it!

What they're calling HIV right now is simply a collection of proteins and genetic material that's always been present in many people. The titers of virus present also contradicts everything known in medical science. The whole list of exceptions made for the existence of HIV is mind boggling, and poor Occam would be rolling in his grave.

I don´t see why the people who pass around this type of virus (or AIDS) aren´t tried for some kind of murder. Has anyone not heard of AIDS in 2005 or what happens when you pass it to someone else? Why is this any different than you putting some poison in a drink and serving it up to someone?

Oh, wait, I forget! It has sex mixed up in it.... so liberals have to bend down and kiss their sacred sex cow´s behind and make it into a big victimhood deal... and money must be spent on people who kill others instead of going to people who really need it and don´t do a thing, like needy kids.

The New York Times has an article up about it. Even the headline says this was not exactly unexpected.

And the rapid-progression case where they discovered it believes he contracted it by anal sex with multiple partners while using crystal meth. So chances are he'd messed himself up pretty well to begin with, then he got HIV on top of it...

Wobble Guy,
The Pasteure Institute in Paris made Electron Miscroscope images of HIV (then calling it LAV). The National Cancer Institute got some as well. This was back in the early 80s.

Source? Science Fictions, a book. Read between pages 100 and 150. You'll find your citation there.

Whenever the major strain of HIV is thwarted by medicinal advances, the US government will modify or polymorph the disease to defeat the countermeasure. That is the only way they can carry out their 'final solution'.

Refer: the AIDS conspiracy.

Wow. I am amazed at the number of HIV deniers that pop up out of the woodwork every time Jane mentions AIDS. Do you folks have a G--gle alert set or something?

http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit2/viruses/u2fig3a.html
http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit2/viruses/u2fig3b.html
http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit2/viruses/u2fig3c.html
http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit2/viruses/u2fig3d.html

Just a couple of micrographs found w/in 30secs on g**gle. FYI, just so you won't continue to a) be badly misinformed and b) therefore misinform others.

From the CDC, originally.

Patrick, PhD, molecular biologist.

And in addition to deniers, conspiracy theorists. Occam's Razor doesn't BEGIN to cut the "US gov't invented AIDS to kill off all the [fill in the blank]" conspiracy, now, does it? I suppose in order to believe, truly to believe, that the evil gov'mint would go to these ends in a society such as ours, you also have to buy into the Greek tragedy that the Whole Project Has Gotten Out Of Hand, a la "The Stand," and we're all headed for an AIDS-induced Armageddon...

I'm sorry. I should not dismiss the terrors of others so easily. Please, those of you reading who honestly think some group or groups have been "targeted" by the government this way, please, please, keep your eyes and your minds open to the possibility that, as with the plague, horrible things can occur in nature and we can't solve every problem with a pill or a policy.

"Why do I make this shocking statement? Because there's never been an EM picture of a colony of isolated HIV."

Please tell me that you don't think HIV is a bacteria.

Anyway, one of the key problems alluded to in this story is crystal meth use. I know 4 people who caught the virus in the past 5 years and all of them were high on crystal meth. It heightens your sex drive while simultaneously making you believe you are invincible--a rather bad combination if you are already in an at risk population.

It goes without saying that if it is a good thing that the new strain kills fast so people don't have as much time to pass it on...that the cocktail drugs which allow people to live a long time is a bad thing because it allows them to pass it on?

Alessandra: Well, I believe people who have had unprotected sex, who knew they were infected, and did not inform their partner, have been charged with at least reckless endangerment.

Murder requires, you know, that the person actually die before the charge can be made. Also it requires intent to cause death, which is extremely difficult to prove. (And in the case of STDs, it would require that the infector knew his/her status, and that the infectee was not informed and did not choose to take the risk willingly.)

That's why, since you asked.

PS. Why IS "g00gle" "questionable content"?

As unpopular as it might be, and probably not possible in a free society, I believe there has to be some way to keep people with HIV/AIDS from passing it on. Whether it starts with a National Registry or some kind of bracelet system so that people can identify it could be a start. Right now everyone in relying on everyone elses good honor that they will ot pass on this disease. Well not everyone in honorable and some people get it who don't behave irresponsibly. I guess the only way to eradicate AIDS would be through some kind of non-voluntary arrangement, possibly even internment camps. Most of this however does not mesh with a free society, so we will be left with this plague.

Ryan Scott: "As unpopular as it might be, and probably not possible in a free society, I believe there has to be some way to keep people with HIV/AIDS from passing it on. Whether it starts with a National Registry or some kind of bracelet system so that people can identify it could be a start. Right now everyone in relying on everyone elses good honor that they will ot pass on this disease. Well not everyone in honorable and some people get it who don't behave irresponsibly. I guess the only way to eradicate AIDS would be through some kind of non-voluntary arrangement, possibly even internment camps. Most of this however does not mesh with a free society, so we will be left with this plague."

As mentioned above, it's pretty easy to avoid getting any STD - all you have to do is not have sex with the people who have them. You don't have to make them wear bracelets or tattoos to do make this work, either. Seriously, how hard is it to f*ck responsibly?

John

I had a rather libertine (by my lights) friend back in the late '80s who insisted that anyone she dated at all seriously be tested and present her with the results of the test (not just tell her they'd tested negative) before she'd take the critical step with them. At the time I was amazed by her sheer balls. Well, I still am, but she was SMART, and now I see just how smart she was (is).

Doesn't get you around any latency period, I guess (I haven't kept up on newest testing technology and limitations), but it sounds like a "must" these days.

"Alessandra: Well, I believe people who have had unprotected sex, who knew they were infected, and did not inform their partner, have been charged with at least reckless endangerment."

Sigivald -You can tell I am not a lawyer - but it does seem very strange to me, the whole "I just didn´t know..." - in cases like this. Why is it different than Russian roulette? A person just didn´t know there was a bullet in that slot... it´s true, they didn´t know, so now that exonerates them from all responsibility about everything? What crap.

They know AIDS is destructive. And what you mentioned about the victim dying, true, but how cute, eh? you transmit a virus that may or may not kill them, and then it´s not murder.

My point is only if a person is completely irresponsible, they don´t know if they have HIV.

Also, if a woman walks alone at night and gets raped, then the rapist is not a rapist because she should have known this is dangerous? Sure,she has a responsibility but this doesn´t do away with the crime.

Also, why are these garbage of people that pass on HIV to others any different than a lab that passes on contaminated blood? Why does a lab have to be responsible and individuals do not? Since the harm is the same, they are both criminal in my view.

I looked up the definition of reckless endangerment and it certainly looks like it to me. Why doesn´t the state prosecute more people? How many people infected with HIV per year? How much money gets wasted on treatment because of it all?

had a rather libertine (by my lights) friend back in the late '80s

Let me guess, she has chocolate sauce on top of her vanilla ice cream and skipped out during the homily in church

"Why does a lab have to be responsible and individuals do not? Since the harm is the same, they are both criminal in my view."

You would expect a higher standard of care from a lab. It's their JOB for goodness sake. They get paid to make sure things like passing on a blood borne disease don't happen. They have equipment necessary to run the proper tests. It's highly possible for an individual to have a disease or at least the virus that causes it, and not know that they have it.
That said, I do agree that someone who KNOWINGLY spreads a disease should be prosecuted. Your Russian Roulette analogy breaks down where knowledge is the key factor. If an HIV positive person doesn't know that they are in fact positive, they haven't done anything reckless, since they have no reason to believe that they have engaged in a deadly activity. Russian Roulette, to my understanding involves at least one bullet in the gun, so there is a far greater knowledge that a death can occur.

No, she didn't show up until AFTER the homily! For heaven's sake. I'm not THAT much of a goody-two-shoes - I used to wear Lycra! (Not just support hose, either.)

Eamon - What is it if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger without knowing whether or not the gun is loaded?

Comments are Closed.