HIV Infection risks

**AntRobertson** · 17-02-2008, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Originally Posted by DirtyDog

I think they have found that HIV can survive for up to 3 days in medical instruments.

Most definately...

Either of you have any evidence to back that claim up? In the space of two posts it has gone from an "I think" to "definately" and yet not an iota of verifiable fact in between to substantiate it.

**dirtydog** · 17-02-2008, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

If HIV can be transmitted via mosquito's then why aren't children being infected in this way?

How do you know they are not? up to 10 years for HIV to show itself, the majority of children would be adults by then.

**Mid** · 17-02-2008, 10:41 PM

^^^^

yes it did , in bold letters .................

the H is for HUMAN

^^^

not

**AntRobertson** · 17-02-2008, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

How do you know they are not? up to 10 years for HIV to show itself

I don't know that they're not, but up to 10yrs doesn't mean 10yrs in every case either. HIV can present itself as even fully blown AIDs in much less time than that. So that's not an answer supporting that idea that they were infected by mosquito bites and only presented in adulthood either.

In a nutshell that's my entire problem with the idea actually - too many if's and but's and maybe's. Current medical thinking has it that HIV cannot be transmitted via mosquito so in the absence of reasearch proving the contrary it smacks of a conspiracy theory to me.

**Driventowin** · 17-02-2008, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Thetyim

A couple of years back I read about some people being totally immune to AIDS because of their genes.
I did a quick google and found this.

Genetic HIV Resistance Deciphered

The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected.

No wonder they're suggesting that condoms aren't necessary anymore..Cheeky Swedes...

bkkandrew · 17-02-2008, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

If HIV can be transmitted via mosquito's then why aren't children being infected in this way?

There's the thing. We don't know if they are or not. There is no routine screening of children as they are not deemed at risk so long as they have not been born to an HIV+ mother. Symptoms would not be apparrent for some time, into adolescence, when sexual activity could also be a cause...

**Driventowin** · 17-02-2008, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Thetyim

Originally Posted by dirtydog

did he though?

Nope he got it from his wife.
The dirty slag had a two week holiday in West Indies just before the divorce

Tried to green you again but out of ammo..

**AntRobertson** · 17-02-2008, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

There's the thing. We don't know if they are or not. There is no routine screening of children as they are not deemed at risk so long as they have not been born to an HIV+ mother. Symptoms would not be apparrent for some time, into adolescence, when sexual activity could also be a cause...

Ok I understand that, but then by the same token you can't then say that the infection was from a mosquito bite either. It could have been from any number of things in the intervening period between infection and becoming asymptomatic.

**Driventowin** · 17-02-2008, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Originally Posted by Ant Robertson

HIV can only survive in human cells

Wrong!!! This is just plain inaccurate the origination of HIV was supposedly from monkeys...

I'm not quite sure how you can catergorically say that is wrong on the one hand and immediately qualify it with "supposedly" on the other.

And in any event even leaving aside to issue of the virus mutating to cross the species barrier monkeys are closely related to humans.

Point taken...But that's not cynicism for my answer it is more cynicism for their diagnosis..

On the monkey issue the similarity is there but your contention was also categorical so I rebutted in kind..

**dirtydog** · 17-02-2008, 10:54 PM

But as i keep saying, if mossies do transmit hiv they would not want this to become general knowledge, could you imagine the panic from normal families and the amount of poison they would be using to protect themselves?

bkkandrew · 17-02-2008, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

There's the thing. We don't know if they are or not. There is no routine screening of children as they are not deemed at risk so long as they have not been born to an HIV+ mother. Symptoms would not be apparrent for some time, into adolescence, when sexual activity could also be a cause...

Ok I understand that, but then by the same token you can't then say that the infection was from a mosquito bite either. It could have been from any number of things in the intervening period between infection and becoming asymptomatic.

Precisely... We don't know. And unless we line up a group of volunteers, some HIV+, some HIV- and unleash a plague of mossies on them and then retest a few weeks later, we will not know.

Can't see that happening though

**Driventowin** · 17-02-2008, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Here's a question or 2, would you be willing to smear HIV tainted blood over a wound on your body?

How do you kill or shoo away mossies that are biting you?

Do you consider that a fresh mossie bite that has penetrated your skin as a wound?

Would you agree that if a mossie 30 seconds ago had sucked blood from a HIV positive person, that that blood would still be HIV Positive and really foking dangerous on your open wounds?

For how long that blood inside your hungry mossie is still hiv positive is open for debate, they suck a lot of blood for such a small animal, do you think it has something that kills off hiv straight away? ie with in seconds? minutes? hours? days?

I'll go one step further and ask of anyone who disagrees with such a premise would you be a willing to be guinea pig for testing to prove definitively against this premise??

**dirtydog** · 17-02-2008, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I don't know that they're not, but up to 10yrs doesn't mean 10yrs in every case either. HIV can present itself as even fully blown AIDs in much less time than that

I would guess that the average child in the world would be aged 8 or 9, that makes the 10 years pretty irrelevant as they would become sexually active within 6 to 9 years.

**AntRobertson** · 17-02-2008, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

But as i keep saying, if mossies do transmit hiv they would not want this to become general knowledge, could you imagine the panic from normal families and the amount of poison they would be using to protect themselves?

Yes I follow your point there. But that strikes me as a rather grand and far-fetched conspiracy theory all for the sake of avoiding people spraying for mosquito's. And you keep saying "poison" but it would be pretty dumb to spray something to kill an insect that carries a virus that can kill you with something else that can kill you. Insect sprays that are harmful to humans simply aren't used.

And who is "they"? How did they get every doctor and medical reseacher on earth in league with them and this code of silence?

Again, too many if's, but's, maybe's, suppositions and leaps of logice for my liking.

**Driventowin** · 17-02-2008, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

If child A is in an environment with low risk from HIV factors but high mosquito levels then surely they'd still be at an increased risk than child B in an environment with low risk factors and low mosiquito levels. There's no evidence to suggest this is the case.

No because of all of the risk factors drop accordingly therefore reducing any low risk subjects from infection..

Meaning that if there are fewer high risk factored adults around them to create a concentrated condition of infected mossies than obviously the risk factor decreases to the low risk group of victims (for lack of a better description) I.E. children, etc....

**Driventowin** · 17-02-2008, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Originally Posted by DirtyDog

I think they have found that HIV can survive for up to 3 days in medical instruments.

Most definately...

Either of you have any evidence to back that claim up? In the space of two posts it has gone from an "I think" to "definately" and yet not an iota of verifiable fact in between to substantiate it.

It is already posted in Mids post previously, but I will find more evidence, I just haven't had time, this topic is moving too fast and I was 3 pages behind when I returned after feeding and bathing my boys..

**dirtydog** · 17-02-2008, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Insect sprays that are harmful to humans simply aren't used.

You want me to trawl through the Pattaya papers for suicides in Pattaya from drinking insect killer?

98 percent arsenic is available here ant, would you consider that non harmfull?

People will use the cheapest poisons available if it became accepted that mossies can give you HIV.

**Driventowin** · 17-02-2008, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

^^^^

yes it did , in bold letters .................

the H is for HUMAN

^^^

not

No it didn't....Read your post again...It says "no evidence"...Not definitive, it's non committal..

A committal answer would be something like absolutely NO possibility of infection as per study....yadah, yadah, yadah...

**dirtydog** · 17-02-2008, 11:13 PM

Ant look at it this way, you live in a remote village and work your small holding each day, you have 5 sheep and a small vegetable patch, that is your life, a tiger comes in and kills one of your sheep, now you can't afford all that fancy fencing and stuff to protect your last 4 sheep, so you sit out on the verandha and shoot that poxy tiger, you don't give a toss if it is the last tiger in the world, that git ate or killed 20 percent of your animal assets, same for your little vegetable garden, that elephant maybe the last one in the world, if it comes in to your garden you have to kill it, you seem to look at things like a good middle class liberal would with no worldly experiences, luckily most of the world aint like you

**AntRobertson** · 17-02-2008, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

You want me to trawl through the Pattaya papers for suicides in Pattaya from drinking insect killer?

Oh for petesake now you're just being silly. Drinking insect killer intentionally!? What on earth correlation does that have to any of this??

Originally Posted by dirtydog

98 percent arsenic is available here ant, would you consider that non harmfull?

People will use the cheapest poisons available if it became accepted that mossies can give you HIV.

I think I'll leave you to your conspircay theories here, this is getting stupid.

**AntRobertson** · 17-02-2008, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Ant look at it this way, you live in a remote village and work your small holding each day, you have 5 sheep and a small vegetable patch, that is your life, a tiger comes in and kills one of your sheep, now you can't afford all that fancy fencing and stuff to protect your last 4 sheep, so you sit out on the verandha and shoot that poxy tiger, you don't give a toss if it is the last tiger in the world, that git ate or killed 20 percent of your animal assets, same for your little vegetable garden, that elephant maybe the last one in the world, if it comes in to your garden you have to kill it, you seem to look at things like a good middle class liberal would with no worldly experiences, luckily most of the world aint like you

DD,

Your little scenarios and ad hominem attacks on me prove nothing.

**dirtydog** · 17-02-2008, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Drinking insect killer intentionally!? What on earth correlation does that have to any of this??

You stated sprays are not harmfull to humans, it just shows how little you know about 3rd world countries, they aint going to be spending 100baht a can for a nice spray down at Big C, they will be trying to kill the mossies anyway they can for the cheapest amount of money as possible.

**Driventowin** · 17-02-2008, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by dirtydog

How do you know they are not? up to 10 years for HIV to show itself

I don't know that they're not, but up to 10yrs doesn't mean 10yrs in every case either. HIV can present itself as even fully blown AIDs in much less time than that. So that's not an answer supporting that idea that they were infected by mosquito bites and only presented in adulthood either.

In a nutshell that's my entire problem with the idea actually - too many if's and but's and maybe's. Current medical thinking has it that HIV cannot be transmitted via mosquito so in the absence of research proving the contrary it smacks of a conspiracy theory to me.

No, but see this is the problem with the entire HIV/AIDS epidemic Ant. Everything about it is if's and's or maybe's and still unknowns, that's what makes it so difficult for anything to be presented as concrete fact or fiction..Most of it is still speculation by the medical community..

If you remember there were millions of people infected before the medical community (CDC and their European counterparts) even stood up and declared it an epidemic they didn't want to do that because they originally thought it was a "gay disease".

bkkandrew · 17-02-2008, 11:21 PM

I think the conspiracy against insect repellant is off the mark. The petrochemical industry worldwide is pretty powerful. I don't think that they would let the chance to sell a sh1t load of product slip them by...

More likely, as the transmission method by mosquito is not easily proven either way, it *may* have been overlooked in order to follow perceived wisdoms...

**dirtydog** · 17-02-2008, 11:25 PM

So lets say tomorrow it hits all the national papers that mossies can spread HIV, who isn't going to go out tomorrow and stock up on insect killing stuff? How would that effect the envoirement when billions of people spray their houses and gardens tomorrow? It would totally destroy the envoirement as we know it.

Thread: HIV Infection risks

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions