May 15, 2014
African Women and HIV: Stupidity in the New York Times
Women make up more infections in Africa because homosexuality is more concentrated in the developed world.
They have problems in Africa like rape, lack of condom use, and promiscuity. This parasite explanation is a joke. It does not stand up, but it is not meant to stand up. The theory is being selected and boosted in the Times because the Times wants you to see African ladies in the field and feel pity that a parasite is making them catch HIV. Shucks, why are women 60% of HIV cases in Africa but much less elsewhere? It couldn’t be the gay vector to the disease being different in different regions. What gay vector, you homophobe? It couldn’t be rape: that might take them dangerously close to mentioning the absurd prevalence of rape in South Africa, the glorious rainbow nation. Nor could it be promiscuity: no, that would be slut-shaming.| Theden | Thedening the West
Posted by gerardvanderleun at May 15, 2014 2:18 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
I read somewhere that some of them folks still have not associated the sex act with the birth of the child. They don't know the 2 things are related.
Now THAT's primitive!
And no amount of *counseling* can cure it, they are THAT far behind on the evolution scale.
Are they even "people"?
Remember, a zebra is not a horse no matter how much it looks like one.
Posted by: ghostsniper at May 15, 2014 2:41 PM
Then there's this story from the morning paper: "Federal health officials recommended Wednesday that hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk for AIDS take a daily pill that has been shown to prevent infection with the virus that causes it. If broadly followed, the advice could transform AIDS prevention in the United States — from reliance on condoms, which are effective, but unpopular with many men — to a regimen that relies on an antiretroviral drug. It would mean a fiftyfold increase in the number of prescriptions for the drug, Truvada — to 500,000 a year from fewer than 10,000. The drug costs $13,000 a year, and most insurers already cover it."
So let's see: 500k people times $13,000 a year each-- isn't that $6.5 billion? Because some folks don't want to wear condoms? And the insurers are going to cover this with whose money? Good Lord.
Posted by: Al Johnson at May 15, 2014 6:12 PM
If you knew someone had AIDS would you have sex with them with a condom?
Posted by: ghostsniper at May 15, 2014 8:05 PM
HIV is not contracted through vaginal intercourse. Period. With that one fact, anybody can figure out the rest. Rape has nothing to do with it.
If you find that it's not worth your life to keep it out of your ass, or your hook up's, it's not worthy of my money or attention. Boo hoo.
Posted by: james wilson at May 15, 2014 10:32 PM
If there is one thing history has proven, its that the left is more than willing for hundreds of millions to die rather than them be proved wrong.
"HIV is not contracted through vaginal intercourse. Period. "
I dunno what bathroom wall you read that off of but you're wrong, and can be dead wrong for it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 16, 2014 2:03 PM
Nobody owns life, but anyone who can pick up a frying pan owns death.
Posted by: chasmatic at May 16, 2014 10:28 PM
"I dunno what bathroom wall you read that off of but you're wrong, and can be dead wrong for it."
If you are going run your mouth first take the trouble to find out exactly what the numbers are and you won't have to play the fool twice.
Posted by: james wilson at May 17, 2014 12:37 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)