About five days ago, I posted a column entitled “Rebuttal”, which was a response to Nick’s comment on another of my columns. Nick left another comment a couple days ago, so this is my new response in this debate.
Nick,
First of all, thank you for your appreciation of my column, “Rebuttal”. I like positive reader feedback as much as the next guy. I do have a revision to my original column though. I discussed some things with a friend who has completed his First Responder training, and he made an interesting point. Current scientific thought is that HIV cannot be transmitted from human to human through “pure” saliva or mucus. However, if the saliva or mucus is tainted by blood from the afflicted person, even in trace amounts, there is still risk (in my mind significant risk) for the disease to be spread when the contaminated mucus/saliva comes into contact with mucus membranes or something as simple as superficial injuries (cuts, scratches, scrapes, etc.) of a healthy person. That is an important to note.
Also, I am glad to hear to that you oppose the legalization of hard street drugs. That puts us on the same page. We still disagree over the legalization of pot, but I find it easier to debate with some over pot than crack, heroin, crystal meth, etc. You say that crack heads don’t shoot up and you’re right; they smoke it instead. I am not well versed in how different types of street drugs are used and I was generalizing. However, I do take issue with fact that you dismiss me because of age and original comment on AIDS (which I addressed above). It is true that the young lack experience in the real world, but that lack of experience does not necessarily mean that they cannot analyze a situation successfully. Also, you say that “I know little of what I speak”. If that is true, why didn’t you attack the main points of Rebuttal? Instead you merely point out the technicality that crack heads don’t shoot up. It seems that can’t see the forest but for the trees.
Mike Grant – Samnite Gladiator
According to Michael Fumento, in “The Myth of Heterosexual Aids”, ~96% of HIV transmission is via anal intercourse, because it damages the recipients anal mucosa making it susceptible to viral transmission. The vagina is designed for intercourse and is therefore unlikely to be damaged, so virus particles cannot enter the females body.
Recently it has come to my attention that some think the strain of HIV in Africa is more contagious. Fumento suggests that anal intercourse is not as plainly reported by Africans, and may therefore still be the reason for its greater spread. Then there is the myth, even spread by religious leaders there, that condom makers are deliberately infecting their product to suppress the Black Man.
I often liken HIV spread, and AIDs, to the sicknesses that befell sailors 350+ years ago. It was the habit of sailors to defecate through the rigging of the bowsprit (the spar projecting forward from the bow of a ship). Needless to say, grasping such rigging with one’s hands was extremely unsanitary. It may well be the cause of so-called Ghost Ships on which all crew died.
Then the British Navy hit on the idea that all sailors should wash their hands with lye soap before returning to work, even their feet were to be rinsed —by stepping in some of the splashed soapy water. The rate of dysentry and other gastrointestinal diseases among British sailors was dramatically reduced. This made them enormously more effective in both sailing tasks and, above all, in battle.
The principle in this was simple prevention (even though they had no idea of microscopic diseases and of sterile techniques). Simply block the availability of new hosts and the parasite dies off. The same could be done with HIV …no anal intercourse without condoms, perhaps no intercourse without condoms whatsoever, if risk levels are that high. Even oral sex, where damaged gums may be present, should be eschewed.
I want to commend you on your civil response to Nick, especially considering how uncivil he was.