Liberals all over the country are banning smoking in ANY public building...so if you own a bar liberals are telling you that you can't have people smoke there. So much for being pro choice...
oh, and now in CA they are trying to make it so if you have a kid with you, you can't smoke in your car either...
What other things should the government tell you not to do because it is a health risk:
1. abortion....kills babies
2. gay sex....much more likely to give you STD's such as HIV
3. Eating fast food...makes you fat, increases the chance for heart disease
4. drinking alcohol....they tried that one before
Okay, what else?
Saturday, January 28, 2006
What else should we ban???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
Jim, I posted a reply to you about this in the next on down post. I'll see you later:)
Well shoot, it's the third down post, Jim. That's what I get for always being in a hurry.
While I agree that gay promiscuity greatly facilitated the spread of AIDS in this country, I would maintain that it was the promiscuity and not the sex acts themselves that caused the spread of AIDS.
Semen does not cause AIDS. the HIV virus causes AIDS. In case you aren't aware Mark, anal sex is a common heterosexual practice.
I don't know where you do your research, Mark, but it is pretty lacking. You characterize my assertion as a "flat out lie"?
Kaiser Family Foundation:
"Teens and young adults, particularly girls and young women, continue to be at the center of the epidemic."
"The major route of HIV transmission is heterosexual sex."
"Most young people living with HIV/AIDS are girls (62%)."
University of Albany:
"Worldwide, more than 75% of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse."
Jim, you are flat out ignorant and wrong...are you gay?
I just sit back and shake my head when you show that you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
Maybe tomorrow I'll give the stats, it is clear and obvious that there is a greater chance to contract a communicable disease from anal sex...no question what-so-ever...
I didn't say it was only a gay disease, but since it give a much greater chance of infection, and because the gay community is getting back to the same numbers they had in the 80's, it seems like a risky, unhealthy activity...way to avoid the issue once again.
I had to read many many studies from the Kaiser foundation, it was sad to see how biased their research was...I could not use a lot of it to support my thesis...if you don't know they have an agendy just give up Jim, you are lost and hopeless...
I just looked at the stats of new HIV cases from two years ago, gay males have made the biggest gains in HIV infection....
"And Jim, science has admitted for years now that life begins at conception."
That is true, but trivial. Neural connections don't begin to form between the cortex and the thalamus until 22-24 weeks. A fetal brain doesn't begin to resemble a newborn's brain until 26 weeks, and by 32 weeks, the brain patterns are identical with a newborn's. That's the science.
Speaking of bans, friends don't let friends drive Fords. ;)
I guess I'm out of the joke...what exactly is the thing with Fords? I drive a Mercury. Pretty much the same thing as a Ford. My car has the same engine as the Mustang...VAROOOMMMM ;)
Yeah Game, I was thinking the same thing about the stats, and links, and all too. If I have enough time to waste tomorrow digging all that up, I will do the same. Because unless he has it in black and white, he won't be convinced...if even then. Citing the fastest growth of HIV/AIDS in populations, doesn't detract from the gay issue one bit. It's the origins. Also, the facts are, that the gay culture typically isn't at all monogomous. Etc. I didn't have the energy to do the digging tonight.
And even if it takes me the whole week before I can assemble this, Just For Jim (that's catchy, he should use that as a blog name), this go around, I will strive to complete it.
What is this about heteros COMMONLY practicing anal sex? Have I been in sexual darkness for all these years? Nobody has ever tried that with me, and they had better not either! Yech!
anon...do I know you?
Technically, life begins before conception, if you use that logic. Anyway, Jason has the most solid argument here. It may be 'living', but its essentially no different than a cyst or whatever, until a nervous system forms. Its also pretty simple, if you dont believe in abortion, dont have one. Using a 2000 year old religious system of thought to back up your prejudice is plain foolish. Mostly, because it wasnt until the thirteenth century that children were afforded the same status as an adult. So, 2000 years ago, nobody would have thought twice. It gets even messier during the Reformation. Simply, its a bunch of people trying to justify their intrusion into another persons choice.
Jim/Rhyno, you know how I know that you're gay? You wear matching Nathan Lane jammies and PETA approved faux fur cozy booties. (The 40 Year Old Virgin is a must see.)
I would definitely discourage Jim and Rhyno from hooking up. Abstinence is by far the best policy and has driven AIDS infection rates down dramatically.
Don’t be gay, Sparky!! Don’t be gay!!!
Very funny EH
I love Rhyno's 100% hippie argument of "don't force your religion on me" statement. Rhyno, pretty much all laws are telling people what is right and wrong. I might believe if someone was trying to steal my car and I had a gun that I could shoot them, but the law says I can't. Based on your logic, my freedom of choice is being taken away.
After the first trimester, a vast majority of pregnancies are safe. So if you are killing a baby after the first trimester, you are ending a life that had an 80% chance of happening....and do ANY liberals have a justification on how partial birth abortion is necessary.
If there are ANY cases where it was needed to save the mother, it has to be about .000001%
In keeping with the title of The Game's post: "What else should we ban?"
Jim does have a point about the promiscuity furthering the spread of AIDS, although I do stand behind the remark on gay sex. Both instances further the spread of AIDS, creating economic problems.
So in keeping with the liberal premise that health risks should be banned, why don't they argue for a ban on promiscuity also? (I mean, they shouldn't be wishy washy about their philosophies, creating bans only for certain, special health risks.) The way I figure it, we could take things back to the Puritan era, and arrange to have anyone, male or female, severely beaten, and ostracized by society, if they were caught being promiscuous. We could have police forces, give them specialized training on how to monitor for promiscuous activities, and how to set up sting operations for promiscuous behaviors, etc. (Those special committees/task forces are big, all time favorites of the Dems. They set up committees to debate and protect every pet project of theirs.) After all, promiscuity IS a health risk, causing worse harm then smoking. And it's very clear that marriage does not ensure a monogomous relationship. So that shoots Jim's theory about gays should be allowed to marry to encourage monogomous relationships. Sometime ago, I read studies about the gay culture, whereas it was made perfectly clear that the gay culture is extremely promiscuous. They have a tendency to seek out 'fresh meat', after the rectal and colon passages become too enlarged with their usual buddy. See, those organs don't contain the sort of muscular structures as vaginas do, so they don't retain their shape, as vaginas do. They just get increasingly enlarged over time. And heck, any red blooded male, knows THAT IS NO FUN WHATSOEVER, when a passageway too big. Makes for sloppy sex. Yeck! So too keep her man/men happy, many women do exercises to maintain the muscle tone in the vaginal vault.
So, the point is, that Dems do only pay attention to their special interest groups they believe will give them votes, if they make campaign promises to protect their interests. There is not a hint of any underlying moral conviction at all behind the Dems platforms. Period.
OK, so now based on the Dem's ILLOGICAL premise that anything with a shade of threat to health be banned, I ask "WHAT ELSE SHOULD WE BAN?"
If we followed Dem logic, it would lead to a complete communistic control of people. Yet they are the ones, saying that Republicans are taking away our freedoms? Weird.
great point!!!!
Well, you know what? I'm going to do something I doubt most of you will ever do. I'm going to admit that I have doubts about D&Es being a necessary procedure, because I did some research on it. Apparently there are alternatives just as safe.
However, to use your terminology, "killing a baby" is "killing a baby" is "killing a baby". You are not against D&Es per se. You just use the description of them as leverage in your argument to ban all abortions. The medical community could replace the procedure with a totally, let's call it "benign" procedure, and it wouldn't change your position on late term abortions anyway.
So your howling about "partial birth abortions" is just a ruse, isn't it?
BIG SIGH. Jim, It's not crap. It's true. they're called Kegel exercises. I've given you the name of the exercises, so now please do your homework on Kegel exercises, and refrain from what you condemn others for, namely just calling something BS without researching the topics. Go ahead, and do the research on vaginal muscle tone. While you're at it, go ahead and do some research on the basic structure of the rectal and colon passages. You'll find that there isn't the muscle tone, or elasticity in these passages to support repeated penetrations, as these passages were NOT designed for penetration. The purpose of these passages is for elimination of waste. The human body was created with structures designed for specific purposes. When these purposes are followed, disease is almost nonexistent. When anyone abuses this complex design, poor health, and increased susceptibility to diseases ensues.
Remarkably, most of these designs are consistent with Biblical teachings on morality issues. Coincidence? I think not.
OK, the second issue you brought up is that I am "approaching the promiscuity issues the wrong way". I did NOT specify that I was ONLY speaking against gay promiscuity. I was speaking out against all promiscuity, but ONLY with the intent of showing how faulty the premise is that Dems use to support their smoking bans, and other special groups' interests is. I was simply making the point, by USING FACETIOUSNESS, that the entire premise that Dems use to excuse their support of special interest groups which will give them votes, is WRONG. It is based on entirely FAULTY logic. One cannot vigorously DEMAND that because something people do is wrong, based only on the premise that it is "a health risk", should be banned, without also DEMANDING that other similar health risks also be banned. If they DO, then they are engaging in HYPOCRITCAL, CONFLICTING philosophies. The premise Dems use here is OMG! It's unhealthy and puts others at risk, therefore, ban/monitor this behavior, and fine those/jail those guilty of any breach. When applied to other health risks, the Dem's underlying hypocrisy is easily disproved. Dems do NOT care about any health risk issue, UNLESS there are special interest groups involved from which they are likely to obtain many votes from.
No, you just failed to understand the message. The message I was communicating, with a touch of humor, is that the entire liberal logical basis for support of their special interest projects, such as the no smoking bans, using the premise such as significant health risk as a basis for their argument in these bans, is faulty at the very outset. Go to the core of the presumed 'logic' of this argument. Any good lawyer knows that if you destroy the logic of the premise (look that word up in the dictionary), that the opposing side is adhering to, the opponent's entire case is shot to hell. And thus, the game's up. No need to look up research articles and links, as both sides can come up with data to support their side. Instead, attack the very core of the argument, and expose flaws in the argument's design. Points go to whomever can destroy the faulty premise. So in reality Jim, the game's up. I have just proven the faulty premise the Dems used for the entire argument against the smoking bans. (This can easily be used on other bans as well.) Their entire argument is based on the premise that because it is a health risk, it needs to be monitored and strictly controlled through our government. Well, by golly, if Dems REALLY WERE CONCERNED about health topics, and the nation's health they would apply their line of reasoning to EVERY significant health issue out there. The fact that they do not proves the theory that Dems ONLY cater to special interest groups from whom they believe they will obtain votes from, come election time.
Would you really be surprised to find out that most Democrat politicians abhor gays? But they're out for themselves, man. It's a power thing. Time for a reality check, Jim.
Lord, my load is heavy! I must admit, it is so tempting to fall back on the 'much more fun' ways of disproving liberal theories, ie: witty sarcasm, endless ridicule. However, in the long run, logic is more effective. Sigh.
Jim, there are NO exercises designed to maintain the muscle tone, and elasticity of the male rectal and colon passages, because these structures do NOT have those sorts of muscles, BECAUSE they were NOT designed for penetration. They were designed for elimination. Period.
But check out Kegel exercises. There are also numerous studies available about vaginal births versus C-sections (although we medical people have been told not to use that term, it reminds people of oranges and grapefruit sections, and is considered NOT PC), and the fact that C-sections do not create trauma to the vaginal tissues, thereby preserving the elasticity, (muscle tone), of the vagina. And gee, I guess that is because most women, like men, are interested in good sex, and want to keep their man/men happy, and coming back for more, don't you suppose?! There are even countless studies out there regarding whether a woman who is having a vaginal birth should allow her vagina to tear naturally during birth, or have the physician do an episiotomy (look that one up on your own time too, please), right before the baby's head proceeds through the birth canal. The old school of thought was that episiotomy, with subsequent suturing of the area after birth, would cause less damage to the structures, thus preserving more elasticity, and preserve sexual pleasure. However, the current medical position on this is that when the vagina is allowed to tear naturally during the birth, the area heals better, and preserves more elasticity. This conclusion was arrived at, after many studies comparing and contrasting the two different methods was completed.
Therefore Jim, I am NOT "full of crap", use your body within the guidelines it was created for.
Sigh...
One more silly comment about these issues Jim, I will implore The Game to obtain picture specialists to 'draw you some explanatory pics'. Know of any good artist types, Game? Sigh.
BTW Jim, neither The Game, or myself needs to waste any more of our valuable time, searching for old forgotten links to research articles regarding gay sex, STD's, etc., ad nauseum. Liberal hypocrisy destroyed once again through the simplified method of destroying the premises on which their arguments are based. The Game's up Jim. Points go to me and The Game.
And Jim, don't bother on trying to state that the male rectal and colon passages do not become severely, abnormally enlarged from repeated penetrations, or else I will be forced to recite the endless stories from several colleagues of mine. One of these is an emergency room physician who did his internship in Washington D.C. He's a 6'5", large, muscular, black man with hands larger than both of my hands together. He keeps us simultaneously amused and abhorred for hours on end with his stories about doing rectal checks, and/or removing foreign objects, such as gerbils, from the gay male orifice during his internship at this inner city ER.. He holds up his hands, and describes how the passages are sometimes so enlarged that he can get both of his hands up the 'hole'. One look at the size of one of his hands, and the point is complete.
And, BTW, he hated every stinking moment of that internship. Who wouldn't?!
I know what Kegel exercises are. I'm talking about the claim that gays are promiscuous because they can't get a tight fit anymore. I don't believe it.
I like the way I cite statistics and link to reputable sources for those statistics, and then you guys say my statistics are crap but you won't present any sources to refute mine. Are you lazy or just dishonest?
I've been present, and I mean PRESENT at the births of all my children. You don't have to tell me about episiotomies or the debate on whether or not to do them. This is SO FAR OFF TOPIC that you need GPS to find your way back.
All this anatomy "lesson" is entirely beside the point. You do not listen, you do not read, you do not comprehend. Somebody has asserted that gay promiscuity is due to reduced elasticity. I don't dispute the deterioration of elasticity, but I do dispute that that's the reason for gay promiscuity. I've never heard of that, and you don't provide any sources. I don't believe it.
Somebody has asserted that the spread of AIDS is due primarily to gays. I refute that with evidence. That may be true historically IN THE US, but heterosexual transmission is the fastest growing segment and the largest means of transmission world wide.
Anon said: Would you really be surprised to find out that most Democrat politicians abhor gays?
And pray tell what is the source for this astounding assertion?
Jim: Episiotomies are NOT off topic. You stated that the muscle tone thing I was saying was a bunch of crap. It is NOT. I replied with data to back up my statements. Some of those statements included the research that has been done over the years regarding which maintains the most vaginal muscle tone, episiotomies vs natural tearing. I went on further to explain that these sorts of exercises to maintain the elasticity of the orifice used in gay sex, does not exist because of the fact that this is an ABNORMAL use of the body, and that was THE POINT. (Are you retarded?) That PROVES THAT YOU were just being insulting, and not polite at all when you accused me of being off topic. (Or else you're retarded.) You were resorting to common insults. You're in denial so bad, Jim. And you have not yet provided me with YOUR PROOF that the structures of the male rectum and colon were specifically designed to accommodate persistent thrusts during copulation. I told you that these structures WERE NOT designed for that purpose. I CITED the very well known fact that copulation in these passages, breaks down the relatively thin linings of these passages, providing optimal conditions for diseases of all sorts to easily enter the blood stream. The vagina is specifically designed for persistent thrusts, therefore the lining of the vagina does not break down easily at all. And furthermore, I stated that it is a well known fact that the gay male's rectal and colon passages become so enlarged from these abnormal penetration habits, that a host of other GI diseases often ensues from this HIGHLY ABNORMAL use of part of the human body, which was designed for ELIMINATION PURPOSES, NOT SEXUAL PURPOSES. Since the gay male still has to use his 'sexual orifice' as a means for the body's WASTE (this is a hint, Jim...key word here), PRODUCTS, when these waste products pass through the irritated rectal and colon passages, they create infections. This is because poop is FULL OF TOXIC BACTERIA, that is not meant to enter the blood stream, or be exposed to other fragile tissues UNDERLYING the rectum and colon linings. Gays abuse their rectal and colon passages, and therefore they set themselves up for diseases. See, women have a very SPECIAL HOLE, ISOLATED for the specific purpose of penetration by a penis. No exposure to toxins in poop or pee there. SPECIALLY DESIGNED HOLE, Jim. More about these holes later Jim, in another post.
THINK JIM...if these gay male 'passages' are enlarged, no possibility of ever regaining their original size or shape, what sorts of GI difficulties does that create? MANY, JIM. But lets see if you can figure it out. THINK, JIM. It is a major health risk for gays to practice anal sex, even if there were NO STD's at all involved, the severe health risks would still be there because of the damage thrusting of objects into the rectum and colon does to this orifice. This ABNORMAL use of parts of the human body for which it was not designed, creates billions of dollars in unnecessary health care expenses, for our country, and our health care facilities, and our insurance companies, as evidenced by the many GI disorders/GI infections that gay men experience from their abnormal use of the body.
And please, Jim....YOU HAVE NEVER heard of gay men seeking 'fresh meat' because of the tight fit? That is where the young boy fetish fits into the gay scene. A worldly man such as yourself has never heard of this? Scoff. I'll see if I can't dig up a few of those references for you Jim. I probably won't have access to them for awhile, but be patient. I'm going to enjoy proving you wrong on this one.
And, I rest my case that the basic premise of the liberal based no smoking bans, and almost every other pet liberal project, is based entirely on the faulty logic (excuses) that these are necessary due to the extreme health care risks they create. If Dems truly cared about health care risks they would demand unnatural uses of the human body, (gay sex for instance) to cease. But they won't, because it means votes for them. And they are a desperate sort, needing all the votes they can get. So their insanity and hypocrisy persists.
AND JIM, You stated that anal penetration is a (QUOTE) "COMMON" practice among heterosexuals. Since you're asking for links, please send me YOUR scientific data indicating that anal sex is commonly practiced among the majority of heterosexuals.
More later.
What is my source about Democrat politicians not caring much for gays? Word of mouth, Jim. Straight from many asses mouths. Are you being kept out of the 'circle of trust', on the latest? Sounds like it.
Jim, when you deal with any health topic....your swimming in a pool and I'm the lifeguard...
I know as much or more about these topics than anyone else here. I don't even know what we are talking about anymore, but you really are spinning hard here.
Homosexual activity was the first group to spread HIV in the US. It went down for awhile, and now it is back again...they are devestated by their own actions and all the diseases they catch....they are at greater risk for catching HIV, as is anyone who engages in anal sex with multiple partners.
Just a sample from the CDC:
In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for approximately two thirds of all HIV infections among men in 2003, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2]. The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased during the 1980s and 1990s, but recent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses for this group [3]. Given the high prevalence of HIV infection in young MSM of minority races and ethnicities, there is a continued need for culturally diverse prevention and education services.
Another stat that is on the CDC web site....63% of reported HIV cases in 2003 were from male to male contact...sorry Jim, you just flat out wrong on this one...seems you are the one trusting the liberal talking points and spin this time.
Game: I am sure you do know just as much or more about gay sex (jk...ha! ha! I left this sentence wide open too, just like the comment about "what makes a man hot to a woman") more than anyone else here. I have sat through way too many mandatory 'gay sensitivity' inservices for the last 20 years to even want to bother much with it anymore. The last thing I ever thought I would be doing is trying to explain the origins and problems of it over the Internet. The last five years, I have become, well, complacent about things I really don't need to know all that much about. I pretty much stay with the philosophy that I'll learn whatever the hell I need to learn and stay current with to "treat 'em and street 'em", as required within my position. When I sit through boring mandatory inservices now, I sit up front, feign a very interested facial expression, whcih changes appropriately with the speakers tone of voice, as needed. But pretty much, most of the time, it goes in one ear and out the other. I spend the time daydreaming about what I will do later, etc. I've only been busted once, by a pathologist, who knew that I was not really listening, was insulted by my lack of attention, and decided to ask me about my opinion on whatever it was he was just talking about. Oh Geez.
I guess you could say I know enough info to be able to make an educated decision on the right or wrong of it. But realistically, it's not really the sort of thing I hang onto every tidbit of info I get about it anymore, so I can fight the forces of evil against it. Early in my career, I went to the CDC publishings, just as you have, and obtained a wealth of info. But like I said, I am much more complacent now. My priorities are different. Although for Jim's sake (Just For Jim), I have decided to have a go at dispelling the liberal myths on gay sex. Otherwise, I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that, although it is wrong, it is something I will have to tolerate.
OK, why are you implying that with me? Out of everyone you know, can you think of any person who would be quicker to shoot somebody? Speaking of GPS's Jim, make sure Eh gets one. Not only is he way off from the truth, but he isnt even on the correct planet.
If you read my original AIDS post you MIGHT remember that I said that "The vast majority of cases world-wide are from heterosexual sex. Get that? WORLD WIDE. I never disputed the assertion that the AIDS epidemic spread rapidly in the US primarily through the gay community. Anybody who says otherwise is ignorant.
My point is and always has been that gay sex acts are not the only means of AIDS transmission, nor are they the PRIMARY means of transmission WORLD WIDE TODAY. Gay sex acts, AND heterosexual sex acts TRANSMIT the AIDS virus. They do not cause AIDS. They did not start AIDS. AIDS was not created by gay sex. It was not created by heterosexual sex.
By the way, Anon. Do YOU abhor gays?
Game: Just to repeat this so that Jim is aware...STD's aren't the only health problems gay men acquire, and thereby force a burden on our health care systems, government, and insurance companies.
Using a waste product 'hole' for a sexual 'hole' should be adequate explanation for anyone about the diseases that ensue from this practice. Other types of GI infections and GI problems (from severely distended colons) are the norm with gay males. But Jim is of the stubborn sort...
And when I go into discussing how the virus was initially spread through the exposed blood vessels in these gay passages, vs the theory Jim has about how since these days, it can be transmitted through semen also through male female relations, then that justifies his disregarding the theory that gay males originated the disease, hopefully Jim can understand. Let's just trace the origins of the disease, which includes an analysis of the ORIGINAL AFRICAN abnormal gay sexual behaviors, exposing the body to such harm, which allowed the virus to penetrate through to the bloodstream. A disease that under normal human practices, the body usually could have resisted. Once in the blood, it spreads to anyone, hetero, or homo, through any blood and body fluid contact. It never should have got in the blood in the first place, and wouldn't have, for the majority, if not for the original gay sexual activites.
Geez, I'm sick of this topic. I hope I am at least halfway coherent now. Carry on.....
Just curious Game, since you seem to be 'in the know' about the latest sex crapola...what the ??? about this thing Jim says about "anal sex is a common practice among heterosexuals"?
If it is that way these days, I am really, really happy to be middle aged :)
Not in the mainstream in heterosexuals....
And why are we talking about the world here...I was talking about liberals making more and more laws for us to follow so that we can be protected from ourselves...man...if you want to get into why 1 in 4 has AIDS in sub-saharan Africa, that is a whole ohter story.
and no activity gives anyone AIDS...you give someone HIV...maybe picky, but I spend almost two days trying to teach that to high school kids.
Oh for crap's sake, Jim. We are not interested in the worldwide stats.
And if you track the origins of the disease, it originated through gay sexual activities in Africa. See my other posts for details.
These days it is spread through exposure to any blood or body fluid. But that wasn't the case originally.
And Game's right...this was a post about the idiocy of liberal bans on anything the special interest groups don't like. And I proved their faulty logic LONG AGO, way up high in the posts. Yet you have not addressed that issue at all. Why not comment on that hypocrisy? Try to prove me wrong on that one, OK? It was the purpose of The Game's post to begin with. I would seriously enjoy tossing that around with you for awhile.
Your info about the origins of HIV/AIDS is BS, Jim. I was in health care, when the crisis was first recognized. And that is NOT what the CDC was saying about the origins, then.
Of course in all fairness, I also remember the CDC's statements back then in the 80's about blood and body fluid risks of exposure. Back in the 80's, at the onset of panic about HIV, health care workers were NOT advised by the CDC to wear gloves for any other potential body fluid contact except frank blood. Their rationale was that the amount of blood present in urine, or feces, and other body fluids, not obviously contaminated with blood to the NAKED eye, was not enough exposure for one to be able to contract HIV from. I even remember hospitals threatening to fire any nurses who wore gloves "needlessly", (collecting urine or feces specimens, etc.) ie: when coming into contact with known HIV infected patients. They stated that the wearing of gloves in this manner, would be "offensive", and show "prejudice" against gays, which of course is very UN PC. Well, since that time, the CDC's recommendations have changed dramatically....now nurses will be fired if they are caught NOT wearing gloves, when they are in contact with ANY body fluid that has the POTENTIAL to contain RBC's, even if these RBC's are only visible through microscopic examination.
Oh yes, the CDC knew all along, what the real recommendations should have been. They rationalized though, stating that there would have been a mass hysteria resulting in severely prejudicial behaviors if they would have made the later recommendation at the outset. And also, there were financial implications to consider...our government really did not want to strain the health care institutions further at the time. The 80's was an era of extreme nursing and other health care workers shortages....far worse than what people blather about today.
So, yes...there is some manipulation of the general public, even by the finest of the government institutions, such as the CDC.
Anon,
Thanks for the "update". But how can you say that my information on the origins of AIDS/HIV is "BS" based on your knowledge from 20-25 years ago? Back then nobody could see any reason why there should be a computer in every household.
Try some modern research. I suggest Googling:
AIDS origin chimpanzees hunters
Jim...The origins of HIV/AIDS will not change. The info from 20 years ago, still stands.
I think you rely on goofy sites through Google too much for your information. Try out some respected, legit sources.
Anon said: The origins of HIV/AIDS will not change. The info from 20 years ago, still stands.
Anon, I like you. You make me laugh.
The origins of anything can change once more study and research occur.
Centers for Disease Control - The, ahem, CDC. Is the CDC a legitimate enough authority for you?
The National Institutes of Health - NIH, pretty legitimate, huh?
American Scientist
Avert.com- International AIDS charity.
These are goofy sites?
Please take a few minutes to read. I learned something, and you might, too!
Jim...you are experiencing selective attention to bits and pieces of my posts. I addressed the shocking misinfo the CDC told about HIV/AIDS in another post above. The CDC conveniently 'changed' their advice about how easy it was to contract the virus, and they later admitted they covered up that info initially.
So, know what? They do they quite regularly about all sorts of things. RECENT EXAMPLE FOR YOU OF HOW THIS WORKS JIM. They did it very recently concerning the efficacy of cholesterol lowering medications. They published a statement saying many of the drugs didn't do much good and the risks outweighed the benefits. But when the pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the government had a fit, they 'hid' that first recommendation, and started praising these meds like they were miracle cures....Why do you suppose they did that Jim? I'll tell you why..because the gov backed research for these drugs, and the pharmaceutical companies owed the gov BIG MONEY for developing these meds. How would they ever pay the gov back if they couldn't sell the drugs to the public because of the CDC's statement that most were not even necessary? The gov wanted their money back...see? See how just posting bits and pieces of quotes from 'reputable' sources cannot be presumed to be the ultimate logic? Not unless one ties it into the BIGGER picture.
The CDC put out misinformation about HIV/AIDS initially, and then after the 'hysteria' was somewhat
under control, went forth and acknowledged completely different info. There's flip flops all the time. And sometimes for no other reason but money, or politics.
Ya gotta know what's going on at a deeper level, than simply reading a few articles here and there, and then quoting them as the only reality. There's often things going on 'behind the scenes' that affects what the average joe public is even allowed to know. I addressed this problem earlier, but your selective attention was blocking it.
Jim...after 15 years of seeing wafflings as I described above, I stopped gathering info,stopped saving it, and stopped intensely studying it. I resigned myself to the fact that there are 'higher powers' out there that control just about every bit of info the 'little people' will have access to. So for the last 5 years, what I use as a compass to guide my health care decisions is simply my inner compass, an educated compass, knowledgeable about the unchanging, basic realities of anatomy and physiology that isn't subject to being tossed about by every 'winds of change' opinion out there. I evaluate current medical philosophies and treatments within the light of this inner compass. These inner compass opinions are not corruptly influenced by politics, or money. And I must be doing a pretty good job of it, because despite all the high risk situations I have been in, I have never had a malpractice suit. And in 20 years, I have only had three pt c/o. And those three were silly, frivolous, bogus c/o, that no one took seriously.
Post a Comment