Black Folks and Aids

earnest_voice

earnest_voice

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Hey Nugs,

-----------
One of the obstacles to treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus is its high genetic variability.[1] HIV can be divided into two major types, HIV type 1 (HIV-1) and HIV type 2 (HIV-2). HIV-1 is related to viruses found in chimpanzees and gorillas living in western Africa, while HIV-2 viruses are related to viruses found in the endangered west African primate sooty mangabey.[2] HIV-1 viruses may be further divided into groups. The HIV-1 group M viruses predominate and are responsible for the AIDS pandemic. Group M can be further subdivided into subtypes based on genetic sequence data. Some of the subtypes are known to be more virulent or are resistant to different medications. Likewise, HIV-2 viruses are thought to be less virulent and transmissible than HIV-1 M group viruses, although HIV-2 is known to cause AIDS.
  • Subtype A is common in West Africa.[4]
  • Subtype B is the dominant form in Europe, the Americas, Japan, Thailand, and Australia.[5]
  • Subtype C is the dominant form in Southern Africa, Eastern Africa, India, Nepal, and parts of China.[5]
  • Subtype D is generally only seen in Eastern and central Africa.[5]
  • (Subtype E) has never been identified as a nonrecombinant, only recombined with subtype A as CRF01_AE.[5]
  • Subtype F has been found in central Africa, South America and Eastern Europe.[6]
  • Subtype G (and the CRF02_AG) have been found in Africa and central Europe.[6]
  • Subtype H is limited to central Africa.[6]
  • (Subtype I) was originally used to describe a strain that is now accounted for as CRF04_cpx, with the cpx for a "complex" recombination of several subtypes.[citation needed]
  • Subtype J is primarily found in North, Central and West Africa, and the Caribbean[7]
  • Subtype K is limited to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon.[6]
These subtypes are sometimes further split into sub-subtypes such as A1 and A2 or F1 and F2.[citation needed] This is not thought to be a complete or final list, and further types are likely to be found.[8]
----------

All the sub-types but B are in Africa.
African Tribe life is Misogynistic
Muslim life is Misogynistic

This means in Africa condoms are mostly Taboo.
A woman who asked her husband for a condom is admitting SHE is cheating.
Click to expand...
Condoms are mostly taboo in Europe too so there's that. But more importantly countries with high prevalence also seem to have, at best, limited screening procedures for blood destined for transfusion. World health org estimates 250 - 500 people are infected daily in Africa as a result of contaminated blood transfusions. They usually don't realise they're carrying until the shingles appear which is the 3rd phase of virus with only two to go before you're considered in the final phase of the disease.

There is no denying 3rd world countries experience the burden of these epidemics because of inadequate resources, lack of education plus discrimination and stigma. There are cases of female pastors/church leaders preaching HIV/AIDS is a curse from god - punishment for your sins.
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
DonAlejandroVega said:
well, then.....you should sound more empathetic, and less demeaning, if you truly feel that way.
Click to expand...
Well I see your point.

Starting out life in America as a black citizen is a disadvantage.

But, in all cases, the cream rises to the top.

I am disadvantaged compared to the son of a Senator. Yet I still have pretty good chances to succeed.

An ambitious black can use all the helping hands extended toward them to do two things; they can remain in grip with the helping hand, and be pulled through life (the trap you speak of) or they can pull back on it, propelling them forward at faster rates.

Being a minority is an asset once you overcome it's burdens.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Societies have risen and fallen through human history. Why do we think this time will be different?
Click to expand...
Because we are arrogant and refuse to learn from history, thinking we are somehow above the faults that have plagued mankind throughout history. Just like every generation thinks they invented kinky sex.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
Oh no, you're totally right.

Black culture is more susceptible to this though. After slavery they were poor, they stayed that way until LBJ and the great society. LBJ gave them lots of free shit. Free shit looks more appealing when you have nothing.

They, as a people, have been put through hell. It's like the equivalent of "post traumatic stress" on an entire culture.
Click to expand...
Blacks made steady improvements in both income and living standards up until LBJ's "great society", where upon they reversed course. Government handouts kill ambition.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Glaucoma said:
Ah, so you did. Yes, I missed a word.

So then.. how is the statement that they are NOT outliers a problem? What kinda fucking dance is that?



Ohhhh, half-wit strawman math! Impressive. Lets recap what you said.



Summary according to bucktard:

Whites/Asians - high SES, low infection rate.
Blacks/Hispanics - low SES, high infection rate.
Indians - low SES, 'somewhere in the middle' infection rate.

Except

The reality for infection rates goes, according to the CDC on the groups we are discussing here:
Whites/Asians - low, and serves as the baseline to compare other races.
Indians - lower than that of every one including mixed races, but higher than whites/asians. (no multiplier given, so I'm assuming it's pretty close)
Hispanics - 3x (closer to 4x) that of whites
Blacks - 8x that of whites

Looks to me like Hispanics are 'somewhere in the middle' and Indians are closer to the population average in the US which is, according to the 2010 census, 73% white.

Do you understand the meanings of "average" and "middle" in the context we are using now, jackass, or are you just going to keep playing dumb?

Further, the CDC claims that Indians have a lower infection rate than mixed races. So that must mean according to you, that mixed races have a lower SES than Indians? I seriously doubt it.

Your stance is full of holes, much like your head.

There is more to this disease than we currently understand. Get over it. It's not researchers being racist. It's Medical Science. They go where the answers lead them. Perhaps the Indians carry a similar gene? More research will only tell. That is, unless idiot fuckheads like you are going to protest it in the name of anti-racism and drag it on for another fucking 20 years.

Do you not want answers to be found? What kind of scumbag are you to deny medical research that could very well lead to a cure? Talk about low. If this was an 'engineered' virus (which I don't believe), you are no better than the ones who developed it. IMO, it'd make you worse. Congrats.
Click to expand...
it's funny that you're typing all this while never establishing where native americans actually fall in terms of SES.

in any case, what we have established fits the SES explanation perfectly.

i'm just going to use your numbers and assume they are correct, although they very well might not be.

blacks are 12% of the population and represent 44% of cases.
hispanics are 16% of the population and represent 21% of cases.
whites are 73% of the population and represent (let's say) about 33% of cases (almost the entire reminaing percentage, save a point or two for asians and native americans).

as SES goes up, over representation goes down, eventually turning into under representation.

as you have not actually established where native americans fall in terms of SES, the fact that they are proportionally represented does not rebut the SES model in any way.

you need to work on your basic logical premises if you're gonna make a big boy argument, princess.

my apologies for "slowing down medical progress" by pointing out the painfully obvious facts which you are denying.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
DonAlejandroVega said:
so......*clears throat*........HIV is first cousin to mandatory minimums, poverty, gang violence, et al. genocide with a smile, a clap on the back, and a check from Uncle. this genocide was initiated by the Great Original "Progressive, " and continues to this day.
we are ALL being played; by both FACTIONS. black Americans are being played the worst.

8 times the infection rate? is some genetics involved in the disparity? sure does look like it. interesting read, DD. hopefully that data will help lead to a cure. but.......broken families, spawning troubled young people, who behave irresponsibly, and promiscuously, are the major source of this disparity.

and, its not melanin, that is the deciding factor. its Uncle's laser rifle.
Click to expand...
SmokeyDan said:
Find out if having hiv gets you free stuff from government. If it does, you'll have the answer to why blacks contact it at much higher rates.
Click to expand...
Red1966 said:
Blacks made steady improvements in both income and living standards up until LBJ's "great society", where upon they reversed course. Government handouts kill ambition.
Click to expand...
it's like a fucking klan meeting in here.
 
G

Glaucoma

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it's funny that you're typing all this while never establishing where native americans actually fall in terms of SES.

in any case, what we have established fits the SES explanation perfectly.

i'm just going to use your numbers and assume they are correct, although they very well might not be.

blacks are 12% of the population and represent 44% of cases.
hispanics are 16% of the population and represent 21% of cases.
whites are 73% of the population and represent (let's say) about 33% of cases (almost the entire reminaing percentage, save a point or two for asians and native americans).

as SES goes up, over representation goes down, eventually turning into under representation.

as you have not actually established where native americans fall in terms of SES, the fact that they are proportionally represented does not rebut the SES model in any way.
Click to expand...
So now your lame ass argument is that you don't know where Indians fall in SES? Are you really that fucking stupid?

UncleBuck said:
whites and asians are highest SES and underrepresented when it comes to rates of AIDS. blacks and hispanics are lower SES and most over represented. the small population of native americans are also low SES and somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
Your own words, idiot. But go ahead and argue that they are high on SES. That'll be a riot! Dance, jackass, DANCE!

And you do know the CDC has adjusted for population, right retard? So how does this change the fact that they are getting infected less than any group including mixed races, except being slightly higher than whites/asians. You really are a blathering idiot.

UncleBuck said:
you need to work on your basic logical premises if you're gonna make a big boy argument, princess.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should remember what you've said and attempt to have a linear discussion. But since it's clear that your little brain is incapable of such things, I'll not hold my breath waiting for it.

UncleBuck said:
my apologies for "slowing down medical progress" by pointing out the painfully obvious facts which you are denying.
Click to expand...
The only obvious fact I see being denied is that there is more to this disease than SES, and I've never said otherwise. Go ahead and rail against a gene though, since it'll enable your ignorant ass to claim everyone is a racist. That's how good science is done, by ignoring evidence. Fucking brilliant. Keep on doing the Lords work!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Glaucoma said:
So now your lame ass argument is that you don't know where Indians fall in SES? Are you really that fucking stupid?
Click to expand...
sigh.

you really are that stupid.

i am pointing out that you are attempting to use native americans to rebut the SES argument, but you have not even established where native americans fall in terms of SES.

Glaucoma said:
Your own words, idiot. But go ahead and argue that they are high on SES. That'll be a riot! Dance, jackass, DANCE!
Click to expand...
if they were higher SES, like whites, they would probably be under represented, like whites, rather than proportional.

how do you not get this?

Glaucoma said:
The only obvious fact I see being denied is that there is more to this disease than SES, and I've never said otherwise. Go ahead and rail against a gene though, since it'll enable your ignorant ass to claim everyone is a racist.
Click to expand...
where have i railed against a gene?

can you cite one time?

earnest voice has pointed out the issues with our resident white supremacist desert dude's argument, namely that a gene that occurs in roughly 1% of whites offers little to no explanatory value to anything in this discussion.

do you really buy that argument that our resident white supremacist is making? that a gene found in ~1% of whites explains the discrepancies found across all populations and races?
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Forgive me for disturbing the racist circle-jerk being conducted by you progs, but here is news of a genetically engineered cure for AIDS using a technique called CRISPR.

It seems likely that CRISPR will soon provide a cure for a host of maladies. For example:
1. Cystic Fibrosis, predominantly affects Caucasians. Boo, hiss, RACIST
2. Sickle Cell Anemia, predominantly affects Africans. Yay!

CRISPR will also revolutionize genetic engineering of crops. GMOs for everybody! Yay!!

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/17/1405186111
These properties may provide a viable path toward a permanent cure for AIDS, and provide a means to vaccinate against other pathogenic viruses. Given the ease and rapidity of Cas9/guide RNA development, personalized therapies for individual patients with HIV-1 variants can be developed instantly.

We identified highly specific targets within the HIV-1 LTR U3 region that were efficiently edited by Cas9/gRNA, inactivating viral gene expression and replication in latently infected microglial, promonocytic, and T cells. Cas9/gRNAs caused neither genotoxicity nor off-target editing to the host cells, and completely excised a 9,709-bp fragment of integrated proviral DNA that spanned from its 5′ to 3′ LTRs. Furthermore, the presence of multiplex gRNAs within Cas9-expressing cells prevented HIV-1 infection. Our results suggest that Cas9/gRNA can be engineered to provide a specific, efficacious prophylactic and therapeutic approach against AIDS.
 
G

Glaucoma

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
sigh.

you really are that stupid.

i am pointing out that you are attempting to use native americans to rebut the SES argument, but you have not even established where native americans fall in terms of SES.
Click to expand...
YOU did that already, retard. And you call me stupid? So you didn't in fact say that Indians are low SES? I'll let you do your own work. Citation required.

UncleBuck said:
if they were higher SES, like whites, they would probably be under represented, like whites, rather than proportional.

how do you not get this?
Click to expand...
Ok then, go ahead and cite how they have a high SES, even though you've already said they have a low SES. I'd love to see how you cite both of those. Which is it, idiot? Are they high or low? I've already shown that 'proportional' is relative to the US population which is 70-whatever percent white. There was no multiplier given. It's that close.

UncleBuck said:
where have i railed against a gene?

can you cite one time?

earnest voice has pointed out the issues with our resident white supremacist desert dude's argument, namely that a gene that occurs in roughly 1% of whites offers little to no explanatory value to anything in this discussion.

do you really buy that argument that our resident white supremacist is making? that a gene found in ~1% of whites explains the discrepancies found across all populations and races?
Click to expand...
Do you really buy the argument that a virus we don't know enough about to cure may hold a few surprises? Do you not want to see a cure found? Letting those who can afford treatment live with it is good enough for you? What a fucking scumbag you are.

I expect you, as usual, to skip over 90-99% of what I've said. So lets just focus on your citation for saying that Indians are low SES.

Go for it. I got a whole bottle of gatorade for ya.
 
Ra$p0tin

Ra$p0tin

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Whites are a minority in CA, so you hate yourself. I knew that.

You continue your part as the village idiot.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant since I'm not in CA, and which also means your now the proud holder of the village idiot torch.

Congratulations!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Glaucoma said:
So you didn't in fact say that Indians are low SES?...Ok then, go ahead and cite how they have a high SES, even though you've already said they have a low SES.
Click to expand...
wow, you are one confused little cupcake.

i've stated that native americans have lower SES than whites, which is why their rate of infection is proportional, unlike higher SES groups which are under represented.

is that too hard for you to comprehend?


UncleBuck said:
native americans are lower SES and more affected by AIDS than higher SES races. i don't see the discrepancy here.

i don't see how i'm "slowing down medical progress" by pointing out the same obvious things that the CDC and others are pointing out.

seems like you're just cranky because you can't blame this on race rather than non-race related factors.
Click to expand...
i also cited where native americans are lower SES than whites.

UncleBuck said:
let's talk SES of native americans.

  • African American children are three times more likely to live in poverty than Caucasian children. American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, and Native Hawaiian families are more likely than Caucasian and Asian families to live in poverty (Costello, Keeler, & Angold, 2001; National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).


  • In 2005, the high school dropout rate of Latinos was highest, followed by those of African Americans and American Indians/Alaska Natives (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).


  • Socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity have been associated with avoidable procedures, avoidable hospitalizations, and untreated disease (Fiscella, Franks, Gold, & Clancy, 2008).

http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-erm.aspx


there is more to SES than whatever completely undefined metric you are using ad hoc.
Click to expand...
you are lost here little girl.
 
G

Glaucoma

Well-Known Member
So if you agree that Indians have a low SES, wtf is this post all about?

UncleBuck said:
it's funny that you're typing all this while never establishing where native americans actually fall in terms of SES.
Click to expand...
Do another lap, retard!
*hands you a cup of gatorade*
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Glaucoma said:
So if you agree that Indians have a low SES, wtf is this post all about?



Do another lap, retard!
*hands you a cup of gatorade*
Click to expand...
i said "lower" SES than whites.

your argument, which attempts to rebut the SES correlation, is the one that depends on native americans having a very specific level of SES.

do i really need to explain your own argument and its obvious shortcomings to you?

this is pathetic, even for a sock puppet like you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top