People meet for the first time at the Boston AIDS Walk. Some number of
those people as a result of meeting for the first time at the Boston
AIDS Walk have sex. Some number of those people pass along an unknown
human immunodeficiency virus infection to the new sex partner.

a.
How much money is raised at the Boston AIDS Walk?

b.
How much does it cost to treat a person?

c.
How many people could be treated with the money raised at the Boston
AIDS Walk?

d.
Would the money raised at the Boston AIDS Walk cover the number people
who got infected as a result of meeting a new sex partner at the Boston
AIDS Walk?

<dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message...
Hahaha! I'm surprised I didn't think of that, but you're right. I've
come to the conclusion that the only people who really care about HIV
and AIDS are those who either have it already or are likely to contract
it in the near future; everyone else doesn't give a shit.

When I hear the activists talk about fighting AIDS, what they want is
for the government to wave a magic wand and find a complete cure NOW,
anything less is unacceptable and genocide. Nevermind that as wonderful
as our science and technology is there is no possible cure that we
can foresee for at least a century, they want it NOW and you are a
hateful intolerant bigot for telling them that in the meantime they
should take precautions and use discretion when choosing sexual
partners. The AIDS Walk participants will definitely engage in
unprotected sex with each other, perhaps under the delusion the $5000
they raise will pay to invent the cure.

la libertad es la esclavitud wrote:
[snip]

Assumptions like that make an ass out of you for sure; you can leave me
out of it.

Boy, you really are off the deep end, aren't you? Don't let reality
affect your assumptions in any way; I am sure that will make you happier.

--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University

On 9 Jun 2005 23:43:07 -0700, dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu wrote:


Virtually all of the AIDS Walks have been scandalized by
accountability issues. Many are no longer.

As to the notion of organizations as disease vectors, perhaps
time would be better spent investigating the legion of HIV-treating
doctors who have been generously providing their HIV-infected
patients with prescriptions for Viagra and other drugs to promote
the liklihood and opportunity for spreading the disease.

Gee, these doctors act as if the disease isn't spread sexually.

I wonder why that is?

<redrum1@alltel.net> wrote...
The new national crisis is sex offenders receiving Viagra through
Medicaid, and here in Texas they are demanding that Medicaid cut
off Viagra to everyone. But it is no secret that Viagra and its
competitors are as readily available in the gay community as meth
and Ecstasy, and wild orgies involving all three are common. At
least the taxpayers won't have to pay for the Viagra any longer,
and while it is unethical for doctors to prescribe it to an HIV
patient, the reality is that anyone can get it on the street so
it doesn't matter. But I'll be damned if my tax money is going
to pay for it, it's bad enough we have to pay a million dollars
a year to keep each one alive longer to infect others - they
have plenty of cash for their meth and Ecstasy, let them buy
their own Viagra too.

Oh, and I just heard that MDMA (Ecstasy) is being studied as a
treatment for PTSD, as it induces a sense of well-being that
counters traumatic memories. I suppose every tweeked-out HIV+
twinkie will then claim that the "trauma" and "stress" of their
differently-abled HIV status entitles them to free Ecstasy at
taxpayer expense.

Larry D. Farrell wrote:

You do know this is 'Diablo" with another nym-change, don't you?

B/

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:44:58 GMT, "la libertad es la esclavitud"
<bb@miniprod.gov> wrote:


Medicaid is a boon to the Viagra purveyors - welfare for hardons.

Indeed - meth & X keeps 'em going while viagra keeps 'em coming!

Wishful thinking - the taxpayers ARE still paying!

Wrong. It DOES matter. And the unethical doctors keep the
contaminated juices flowing.

Even the doctors are convinced that sexual contact has
nothing to do with the spread of HIV and AIDS.

As I asked before, is this really a mystery?

H-E-L-L-O ??????

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:19:48 -0700, Brian Mailman
<bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote:

While we know that Dr. Farrell is little more than a rube stuck in
a backwoods educational vacuum, the fate and life-purpose
of pharma-apologist Brian Mailman isn't much better.

Both are tortured by the pile of corpses that neither will
actually own.

Like Carter, they retreat as bald-faced cowards!

<redrum1@alltel.net> wrote...
I'm wondering what kind of trouble a doctor would get into if he did
refuse to prescribe Viagra to an HIV patient. Under the ADA HIV is
defined as a "disability," legally no different from being crippled
or blind. I can already hear the protesters screaming about
discrimination against the "disabled," not to mention discrimination
against gays if the doctor refused to prescribe Viagra to an HIV+ gay
man. It could also be argued that HIV medications cause impotence,
therefore Viagra is an essential component of the drug cocktail
treatment. Of course all this is silly, but even without Viagra they
managed to spread it for 20 years; naturally the only solution is to
remove them from the general population (quarantine), but in the
meantime we do not have to be paying to fuel their compulsive sex
drive that caused them to catch HIV in the first place.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 04:32:58 GMT, "la libertad es la esclavitud"
<bb@miniprod.gov> wrote:

The physician is obligated to the patient (and by inference,
the insurance company). In the U.S. the doctor has no obligation
to the public at large. Socialized medicine would likely change
that...

The argument has been made that having an HIV+ diagnosis
contributes to the depression and anxiety which is commonly
associated with impotence.

Actually, Viagra isn't part of the antiviral "cocktail" - it is
a separate component of a "holistic approach based on
observational medicine" ... (now that's being silly).

Drunk drivers also speed in their vehicles without turbochargers.
Does that mean we should put drunk drivers in turbocharged cars?

That worked in Cuba!

Viagra is only part of the bigger picture of disease vectors
we know of as methamphetamine-fueled gay sex clubs,
internet "dating" sites or ecstasy circuit parties. It
is interesting to track geographically-localized outbreaks
of STDs that have been repeatedly traced to these
events.

Interestingly, the association of HIV transmission to the
transmission of STDs is, a best, a weak one. Even
this newsgroups resident AIDS doctor, Robert Holzman
admitted this one!