AMERICAblog: ABC's buddy, the cult-run Washington Times, calls AIDS "the gift of the gays"
kladinvt
· 1 year ago
I guess the 2.1 million dead from AIDS, don't count to this jerk! Nothing to see here,move along now.
At least evolution is on our side & troglodytes like Pruden will 'dumb themselves' out of existence....hopefully sooner rather than later!
maggiePA08
· 1 year ago
Opposable thumbs for everyone!
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
correction... 2.1 million a year.
but, they're all gay people or drug abusers.
/snark
Rob Mule
· 1 year ago
I hope Moonie filth like Wes Pruden and so many others in the revisionist and cholesterol-packed DC media clique suffer for their grievous sins of omission and commission.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Wesley Pruden is an old cracker from Arkansas, just like his viciously racist daddy. I say: fuck Wesley Pruden right up his cracker ass.
BlueNTexas
· 1 year ago
I gave up on ABC being a credible news source after they did the smutjob story on Matthew Sheperd. They have become very anti-gay over the years. Strange considering Disney owns them and Disney is pretty gay friendly.
ObamaPrez08
· 1 year ago
Ben Smith has done a great job at Politico and I consider him a friend of the Obama campaign. He sets the record straight regarding the new supposed 'controversy' about the two head-scarved women at Barack's rally: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168...
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 1 year ago
A Yale friend of mine went to work at ABC for Peter Jennings right out of school in 1973. She became a high level news producer shortly after that. I get an email about twice a year from her. She took a very early retirement this year to get the fuck outta Dodge. She told me that the corporate suits upstairs DICTATED that they would make McCain look good and PUSH Hillary as hard as they could to make sure the black guy did not have a chance. She finally said enough is enough a few months ago and quit. She told me that she had watched as the network news department was taken over by real assholes.
red_dwarf
· 1 year ago
America has been taken over by real assholes. Hence, my reference to Dems as spineless - either that, or, alternatively, they too are real assholes. Kinda hard to tell these days.
The_Crazy_Liberal
· 1 year ago
It's not just ABC - anybody else notice that every other story on MSNBC these days has a Moonie Times "reporter" giving their slant? Drives me nuts.
nicho
· 1 year ago
It won't be long before the Moonies will be running someone for president, trying to claim that they are not really a cult -- just another mainstream religion. And a lot of people will buy it.
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
the military-industrialist imperialist neocons and their wholly-owned media outlets running this country are shitting bricks these days.
i think we can take em.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
The joint ABC News/Moonie Times "investigative" piece has Brian Ross' name on it. . .the same guy who sucked up to the months of right-wing Jeremiah Wright whining and started playing the same tape over and over again as an "ABC News investigation."
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
"The average heterosexual man, even one indulging in casual partners, is likelier to contract breast cancer."
---
wow. this guy follows the chimpco rulebook on 'repeating something over and over gradually makes it a fact'.
like all of chimpy's claims, the statistics don't agree with him.
it isn't a 'gay' diseases anymore, if it was to begin with (patient zero was bi-sexual I believe)... male promescuity (gay or straight) have spread it to all sexual catagories.
this man is an asshat in the nth degree.
Topher
· 1 year ago
Good early afternoon, all. Of course I think what ABC is doing is lame, but I have a bit of a related question I'm hoping one of you can point me in the right direction on. Is it true that HIV/AIDS still disproportionately affects gay men vis a vis heteros (in the United States--I know the situation in Africa is completely opposite). And if it is, is there an explanation as to why? I've looked around on the topic, but the only information I've found comes from the camp that argues HIV is not the casue of AIDS. I'm looking for information that comes from the established HIV/AIDS community on this. Thanks in advance for your help. Have a great day Ablog! (And apologies for going OT)
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
actually, it was evening out for a few years. hetro vs homo rates.
now, the rates among gay men have been going up due to drug use, and the opinion among younger guys that AIDS isn't a death sentence anymore.
over the last two years I've seen more advertisements about the dangers of meth (usually a factor in unprotected sex that leads to infection)... but I haven't seen any studies lately on whether or not the rates of infection are decreasing again.
and then you've got the third case... the loonies who actually WANT to be infected (because then they can have sex with anyone they want and not have to worry anymore... or, they can get disability compensation).
.
Topher
· 1 year ago
Thanks Soundboy_Jeff. Appreciate your insight on the issue.
terjeanderson
· 1 year ago
Topher,
Yes, in the US HIV/AIDS still disproportionately impacts gay men -- the CDC statistics suggest that about half of new diagnoses are among men who have sex with men, almost 40% were about heterosexual contact, with a bit over 10% associated with needle sharing.
The reasons for this are complex.
One of the first ones is simply biological -- anal intercourse seems to be a much more effective route of transmission than vaginal intercourse. While plenty of heterosexuals do have anal intercourse, it is more prevalent among gay men. Additionally, the virus is more effectively transmitted from an insertive partner to a receptive partner than the reverse. In heterosexual activities, that means that a woman is more likely to be infected by a man than she is to infect a male partner. So the chain of transmission among sex partners is less efficient -- an infected man has sex with a woman, she becomes infected, but her next male sexual partner is far less likely to become infected. Gay men can be both the receptive (bottom) and insertive (top) -- meaning that a man who becomes infected as a "bottom" could then more easily transmit the virus to his next partner if he is the "top."
(That is a simplistic biological explanation that doesn't address other import issues -- amount of virus in various "bodily fluids", stage of infection which greatly impact tranmissibility, internal tearing or lesions that enhance risk, other sexually transmitted diseases that impact transmission likelihood, impact of medications on transmission, etc)
The second reason is more sociological - and presents a little bit of a "chicken and egg" problem. Why are gay men more likely to become infected? Because more gay men are infected.
It is all about social networks. Let's assume that gay men in the US have a seroprevelance (infection rate) of about 5% overall, while heterosexuals have an infection rate of about 2/10ths of one percent (which is probably a little high). That means that the chance that if (hypothetically) gay man has sex with 1000 people, about 50 of his partners are likely to be infected. Yet a heterosexual hypthetically having sex with 1000 partners is only likely to encounter 2 partners who are HIV positive.
So obviously this is going to vary from place to place and community to community -- in some places (especially large cities, the overall infection rate is higher, so the odds of encountering an HIV+ partner is also higher)
Another way to look at this is also to look at the racial distribution of HIV/AIDS. Epidemiologists say that half or more of new infections in this country are occurring in African-Americans (about 33% are white, about 15% are Latino, and the rest are Native or Asian/Pacific Islander). This elevated rate is true among African-Americans of all sexual orientations. The rates of infections among Africa-American gay/bisexual men in some cities rivals the infection rate in hard hit parts of South Africa. African-Americans account for almost 70% of the women diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.
This racial disparity is not only a national disgrace, but it is also a reflection on the nature of social/sexual networks in increasing potential HIV risk.
Add in to these issues additional factors -- prevention fatigue among gay men who have been told for more than 30 years that we have to "use condoms all the time, every time," drug use (meth, crack, heroin, etc) rates that vary in different communities and geographical areas, and the failure of the public health and educational systems to provide good prevention services for those most at risk , differentia access to health care, and you start to get a picture of the complex reasons that in North America HIV/AIDS continues to have an HIV/AIDS epidemic more concentrated in some groups than others.
JamesR
· 1 year ago
I'm sure Moon can arrange a marriage for anybody with an HIV negative bride, so it's not their problem then is it? Interesting though that they are printing the word "gay," they got mucho heat for using "homosexual" not so long ago, and I bet it really galls them to have to parse their words more. LOL. The influence, desired influence, and activity of the Moonies is a MAJOR uncovered story by ALL the "MSM," and to be honest it's become a true National Security threat. A real one, not a stupid two-part shampoo and conditioner carry-on bomb. If the Fundies really knew how much of this is going on, and how much major politicians and government officials toady up to Moon and cooperate with his batshit plans they would fucking FREAK OUT. Funny thing is they would be right.
jr
· 1 year ago
advertisers need to be held accountable for keeping that Dobsonist publication on the news stands
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
Considering the truth, you wouldn't want them to admit. Reagan delayed doing anything about AIDs as he thought it was a gay disease and thus allowed the disease to become far, far more serious and dangerous, an epedemic caused by his right wing inaction. Had he acted in good faith, AIDs might have been curbed and fewer people would be dying today, including fewer straight people. Good straight people like those who have contracted AIDs from blood transfusions. All those deaths can be chalked up to Reagan's credit, essentially, he murdered them.
fonsecaa
· 1 year ago
Holy Crap!!!! I seriously did not think there were people this dumb that had the internet. Stupid Me!!!!
All Comments
At least evolution is on our side & troglodytes like Pruden will 'dumb themselves' out of existence....hopefully sooner rather than later!
but, they're all gay people or drug abusers.
/snark
Strange considering Disney owns them and Disney is pretty gay friendly.
i think we can take em.
---
wow. this guy follows the chimpco rulebook on 'repeating something over and over gradually makes it a fact'.
like all of chimpy's claims, the statistics don't agree with him.
it isn't a 'gay' diseases anymore, if it was to begin with (patient zero was bi-sexual I believe)... male promescuity (gay or straight) have spread it to all sexual catagories.
this man is an asshat in the nth degree.
now, the rates among gay men have been going up due to drug use, and the opinion among younger guys that AIDS isn't a death sentence anymore.
over the last two years I've seen more advertisements about the dangers of meth (usually a factor in unprotected sex that leads to infection)... but I haven't seen any studies lately on whether or not the rates of infection are decreasing again.
and then you've got the third case... the loonies who actually WANT to be infected (because then they can have sex with anyone they want and not have to worry anymore... or, they can get disability compensation).
.
Yes, in the US HIV/AIDS still disproportionately impacts gay men -- the CDC statistics suggest that about half of new diagnoses are among men who have sex with men, almost 40% were about heterosexual contact, with a bit over 10% associated with needle sharing.
The reasons for this are complex.
One of the first ones is simply biological -- anal intercourse seems to be a much more effective route of transmission than vaginal intercourse. While plenty of heterosexuals do have anal intercourse, it is more prevalent among gay men. Additionally, the virus is more effectively transmitted from an insertive partner to a receptive partner than the reverse. In heterosexual activities, that means that a woman is more likely to be infected by a man than she is to infect a male partner. So the chain of transmission among sex partners is less efficient -- an infected man has sex with a woman, she becomes infected, but her next male sexual partner is far less likely to become infected. Gay men can be both the receptive (bottom) and insertive (top) -- meaning that a man who becomes infected as a "bottom" could then more easily transmit the virus to his next partner if he is the "top."
(That is a simplistic biological explanation that doesn't address other import issues -- amount of virus in various "bodily fluids", stage of infection which greatly impact tranmissibility, internal tearing or lesions that enhance risk, other sexually transmitted diseases that impact transmission likelihood, impact of medications on transmission, etc)
The second reason is more sociological - and presents a little bit of a "chicken and egg" problem. Why are gay men more likely to become infected? Because more gay men are infected.
It is all about social networks. Let's assume that gay men in the US have a seroprevelance (infection rate) of about 5% overall, while heterosexuals have an infection rate of about 2/10ths of one percent (which is probably a little high). That means that the chance that if (hypothetically) gay man has sex with 1000 people, about 50 of his partners are likely to be infected. Yet a heterosexual hypthetically having sex with 1000 partners is only likely to encounter 2 partners who are HIV positive.
So obviously this is going to vary from place to place and community to community -- in some places (especially large cities, the overall infection rate is higher, so the odds of encountering an HIV+ partner is also higher)
Another way to look at this is also to look at the racial distribution of HIV/AIDS. Epidemiologists say that half or more of new infections in this country are occurring in African-Americans (about 33% are white, about 15% are Latino, and the rest are Native or Asian/Pacific Islander). This elevated rate is true among African-Americans of all sexual orientations. The rates of infections among Africa-American gay/bisexual men in some cities rivals the infection rate in hard hit parts of South Africa. African-Americans account for almost 70% of the women diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.
This racial disparity is not only a national disgrace, but it is also a reflection on the nature of social/sexual networks in increasing potential HIV risk.
Add in to these issues additional factors -- prevention fatigue among gay men who have been told for more than 30 years that we have to "use condoms all the time, every time," drug use (meth, crack, heroin, etc) rates that vary in different communities and geographical areas, and the failure of the public health and educational systems to provide good prevention services for those most at risk , differentia access to health care, and you start to get a picture of the complex reasons that in North America HIV/AIDS continues to have an HIV/AIDS epidemic more concentrated in some groups than others.