why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

I got most of it in the cup and I only spilled a little bit. Do you think "God"will still be mad?

The two Bible verses that deal with these "seed" issues have little to do with sexual function. One is a refusal on the part of a person to obey God and Jewish custom and the other is a symbolic representation of a political action.

 

[Riverwolf]

That was unsophisticated and naive. Homosexuality is acting against at least social norms. Even today there is a stigma against homosexual behavior. The people who practice it are by virtue of dismissing those norms already displaying a higher moral liberality than most. That would undeniably indicate a more promiscuous attitude whether the acts were wrong or right. Another indicator is the famous examples where gay pride events are marked by the most diabolical displays of flaunting any moral decency. The thumb their nose and flaunt the fact more than any group I know. They literally hate anyone who suggests their actions are immoral. I am sure there are very morally upstanding homosexuals but they have a disproportionate number of individuals which literally want to violate social moral norms.

I think here is where I find the center of your argument: they're violating social norms. I won't directly respond to the rest of your post because if you have taken classes in statistics and stats, with degrees, then I will trust you know more what you're talking about than I do in such matters, and we can instead focus here.

In other words, you don't like them because they're living a lifestyle different from yours. To which I say: so what? That has nothing to do with morality. That's simply you being uncomfortable with what they're doing. Here's a secret, I go against social norms all the time, because, seriously, screw society. It rejected me when I was young, so I rejected it right back. But I'm not gay. Screw ties, screw fancy-pants... uh, pants, I'm not interested in sports, I don't drive out of choice, I'm not interested in cleanliness for the sake of showing off, I have a huge beard, I play Dungeons and Dragons... am I automatically immoral for these, too?

Here's the thing: the actual number of homosexuals in proportion to heterosexuals is small. In our culture, men are encouraged to be sexually active while women sexually passive. It's more likely, then, that homosexual men are going to be more sexually active than heterosexual men. This is further encouraged by the fact that they tend to be rejected by society, and have only each other to go to. Once again, our culture is to blame for this dangerous behavior. The solution, therefore, is to educate on the dangers of promiscuity with good sex education, and in accepting homosexuals. Homosexuality itself is not the cause. That flaunting in gay pride parades is sending a message: we are who we are, and we're here to stay, so deal with it. Don't like it? Too bad.

As for sources, Ken said that there was stuff on the CDC. If you have that, show me that, because I trust what they have to say.

 

[1robin]

I think here is where I find the center of your argument: they're violating social norms. I won't directly respond to the rest of your post because if you have taken classes in statistics and stats, with degrees, then I will trust you know more what you're talking about than I do in such matters, and we can instead focus here.

Hold the phone. I am a Christian and of course I view the act as objectively wrong. I however have went out of my way to argue the issue from a non-moral point of view. I think you are confusing my claim that acting against the social norm as inherently immoral. I believe that was not saying that. I was saying that anyone who is of a liberal enough mindset to ignore social stigma is definitely more permissive of their moral practices than people who do not, and therefore that is strongly indicative of an increased promiscuity. That is common sense not a moral judgment. People who get speeding tickets are more permissive with their driving habits. That does not prove that the speed limit is a moral judge. I think you prefer those statistics not indicate what they do and are therefore looking for a reason to dismiss them. Every argument you have made is concerning a technicality (true or false) and has never addressed the issue itself.

In other words, you don't like them because they're living a lifestyle different from yours. To which I say: so what? That has nothing to do with morality. That's simply you being uncomfortable with what they're doing. Here's a secret, I go against social norms all the time, because, seriously, screw society. It rejected me when I was young, so I rejected it right back. But I'm not gay. Screw ties, screw fancy-pants... uh, pants, I'm not interested in sports, I don't drive out of choice, I'm not interested in cleanliness for the sake of showing off, I have a huge beard, I play Dungeons and Dragons... am I automatically immoral for these, too?

Get off the soap box. I am not required to judge a homosexual or hold him to any standard I have. His actions and my actions are between God and him/me. I am not perfect my self but the difference is I honestly say my faults are faults. I never judge anyone in comparison to my behavior. I am no moral yard stick of any kind. Every claim I made is still true even if there was no moral issue with the practice. If you search my posts you will find I am not shy and indicate exactly what I am doing as I do not care if it is politically incorrect. I do not like Islam and make that very clear. I was not debating the morality issue with homosexuality and if I was I would have made that clear as well.

Here's the thing: the actual number of homosexuals in proportion to heterosexuals is small. In our culture, men are encouraged to be sexually active while women sexually passive. It's more likely, then, that homosexual men are going to be more sexually active than heterosexual men. This is further encouraged by the fact that they tend to be rejected by society, and have only each other to go to. Once again, our culture is to blame for this dangerous behavior. The solution, therefore, is to educate on the dangers of promiscuity with good sex education, and in accepting homosexuals. Homosexuality itself is not the cause. That flaunting in gay pride parades is sending a message: we are who we are, and we're here to stay, so deal with it. Don't like it? Too bad.

It is more like we hate morality if it inconveniences us in any way. We are not content to just do what we wish we must exhibit our rebellion against traditional moral values by publically acting in ways that will offend anyone that holds them. I find the practice indicative of rebellion. Atheists are not content to not believe. They must destroy faith in others. It is such a well-known modern phenomena that it has been given the title of militant atheism. I think they are both symptoms of a larger disease but that has nothing to do with my previous arguments of claims. I do not care what anyone does privately but I do start to get unnerved when they attempt to unhinge traditional values of society yet that has not been what I have discussed. I wish you had not indicated the moral aspect. You have me oscillating back and forth instead of the consistent health discussion I have been having.

As for sources, Ken said that there was stuff on the CDC. If you have that, show me that, because I trust what they have to say.

You have already claimed that homosexual males are more at risk. You gave a different reason but it does not change the fact. It is like you are requesting only certain sources for the fact that the sun is hot.
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU.

The Numbers


New HIV Infections2

• In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of new HIV infections in the US and 79% of infections among all newly infected men. Compared with other groups, MSM accounted for the largest numbers of new HIV infections in 2009.
• Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400 (39%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest number of new infections (3,400) occurred in those aged 40–49.
• Among all MSM, black/African American MSM accounted for 10,800 (37%) new HIV infections in 2009. Whereas new HIV infections were relatively stable among MSM overall from 2006–2009, they increased 34% among young MSM—an increase largely due to a 48% increase among young black/African American MSM aged 13–29.
• Among all MSM, Hispanic/Latino MSM accounted for 6,000 (20%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest percentage of new infections (45%) occurred in those aged 13–29.

Estimates of New HIV Infections in the US, 2009, for the Most-Affected Subpopulations



Subpopulations representing 2% or less of the overall US epidemic are not reflected in this chart. HIV and AIDS Diagnoses3 and Deaths

• In 2010, in the 46 states with long-term confidential, name-based reporting, MSM accounted for 78% of estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older, and 61% of estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.
• At the end of 2009, of the estimated 784,701 persons living with an HIV diagnosis, 396,810, or 51%, were MSM. About 48% of MSM living with an HIV diagnosis were white, 30% were black/African American, and 19% were Hispanic/Latino.
• In 2010, MSM accounted for 51% of estimated AIDS diagnoses among all adults and adolescents in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Of the estimated 16,796 AIDS diagnoses among MSM, 37% were in blacks/African Americans; 36% in whites; and 22% in Hispanics/Latinos.
• By the end of 2009, an estimated 296,222 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the US since the beginning of the epidemic.

Estimates of New HIV Infections in the US, 2009, for the Most-Affected Subpopulations


HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

 

[Riverwolf]

Get off the soap box.

Aren't you on one, too?

Or am I just confused as to what "soap boxes" are really used for? I thought everyone who debated had to get on soap boxes to do so.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU.

The Numbers


New HIV Infections2

• In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of new HIV infections in the US and 79% of infections among all newly infected men. Compared with other groups, MSM accounted for the largest numbers of new HIV infections in 2009.
• Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400 (39%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest number of new infections (3,400) occurred in those aged 40–49.
• Among all MSM, black/African American MSM accounted for 10,800 (37%) new HIV infections in 2009. Whereas new HIV infections were relatively stable among MSM overall from 2006–2009, they increased 34% among young MSM—an increase largely due to a 48% increase among young black/African American MSM aged 13–29.
• Among all MSM, Hispanic/Latino MSM accounted for 6,000 (20%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest percentage of new infections (45%) occurred in those aged 13–29.

Estimates of New HIV Infections in the US, 2009, for the Most-Affected Subpopulations



Subpopulations representing 2% or less of the overall US epidemic are not reflected in this chart. HIV and AIDS Diagnoses3 and Deaths

• In 2010, in the 46 states with long-term confidential, name-based reporting, MSM accounted for 78% of estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older, and 61% of estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.
• At the end of 2009, of the estimated 784,701 persons living with an HIV diagnosis, 396,810, or 51%, were MSM. About 48% of MSM living with an HIV diagnosis were white, 30% were black/African American, and 19% were Hispanic/Latino.
• In 2010, MSM accounted for 51% of estimated AIDS diagnoses among all adults and adolescents in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Of the estimated 16,796 AIDS diagnoses among MSM, 37% were in blacks/African Americans; 36% in whites; and 22% in Hispanics/Latinos.
• By the end of 2009, an estimated 296,222 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the US since the beginning of the epidemic.

Estimates of New HIV Infections in the US, 2009, for the Most-Affected Subpopulations


HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

And is that because of their inherent homosexuality, or is it indicating something else?

Again, this epidemic is not because of homosexuality itself, but promiscuity. This doesn't mean men can't have relationships with other men, just that they have to be careful about it just like any couple. As soon as Moonwater and I started dating, we both went through medical checks to make sure we were clean of any STIs, even though I'd never had a sexual encounter before. I believe that all couples should do this, hetero or homo, virgin or not. I also believe that all forms of sexuality should avoid promiscuity because it's so dangerous. That's not a homosexual lifestyle; that's a promiscuous lifestyle. The fact that a lot of homosexuals engage in promiscuity is pretty much incidental... or maybe it's because these "traditional moral values"(which, I might add, aren't even that old and thus not very "traditional") push them to the bottom, where promiscuity and drug use are encouraged.

As for this "stigma" you keep speaking of... what stigma? The one that says I don't want to see men kissing other men? Then why do I get aroused by seeing women kissing women, or the fact that most of my female friends enjoy them some yaoi(gay hentai)? Some stigma if it can't be consistent.

 

[1robin]

Aren't you on one, too?

I am trying hard not to be.

Or am I just confused as to what "soap boxes" are really used for? I thought everyone who debated had to get on soap boxes to do so.

It was not a perfect reference.

And is that because of their inherent homosexuality, or is it indicating something else?

I believe that was indicated as the controlling dynamic. That is certainly the conclusion the studies were after and they are from your approved sources. Claiming STD's are not sexually related is quite strange.

Again, this epidemic is not because of homosexuality itself, but promiscuity. This doesn't mean men can't have relationships with other men, just that they have to be careful about it just like any couple. As soon as Moonwater and I started dating, we both went through medical checks to make sure we were clean of any STIs, even though I'd never had a sexual encounter before. I believe that all couples should do this, hetero or homo, virgin or not. I also believe that all forms of sexuality should avoid promiscuity because it's so dangerous. That's not a homosexual lifestyle; that's a promiscuous lifestyle. The fact that a lot of homosexuals engage in promiscuity is pretty much incidental... or maybe it's because these "traditional moral values"(which, I might add, aren't even that old and thus not very "traditional") push them to the bottom, where promiscuity and drug use are encouraged.

Who is moon water? Are you a homosexual? That would explain the motivation I guess. Please feel free to avoid the question. I have avoided this issue but I can't and answer the question. Many Biblical sins have effects not directly related to a specific act. If I see a warning against something and find massive evidence that its practice produces negative results even if they are indirect I still believe it is wrong. I may do it anyway but I will never defend it as ok. Many wrongs have very indirect negative effects. That does not make them right. If the practice inescapably produces verifiable misery and suffering it is not logical to argue for it's acceptance. I believe it objectively wrong and nature seems to idicate that as well. I claim no more than that and I regard the rationalization of objective wrong as the greatest modern evil that exists but that is a more general issue. BTW artifically reducing the negative effects of something is not an indication that it's practice is correct. I can get away with murder if planned well, won't make it ok.

As for this "stigma" you keep speaking of... what stigma? The one that says I don't want to see men kissing other men? Then why do I get aroused by seeing women kissing women, or the fact that most of my female friends enjoy them some yaoi(gay hentai)? Some stigma if it can't be consistent.

I am getting uncomfortable a bit. If you do not think there is a social stigma I do not think me argueing for one would help. If you think the sun is made of ice I do not think science or data would help. Homosexuals have made a fedaeral case insisting there is one. Are they lyeing or is it true?

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe that was indicated as the controlling dynamic. That is certainly the conclusion the studies were after and they are from your approved sources. Claiming STD's are not sexually related is quite strange.

Indeed, it is. Who said that "sexually" transmitted diseases aren't related to sexuality?

What numbers are indicative that homosexuality is the controlling dynamic, and not promiscuity?

Who is moon water? Are you a homosexual? That would explain the motivation I guess. Please feel free to avoid the question.

Moonwater is my girlfriend and also a member/moderator on these forums, and no, I'm not homosexual at all. I have no personal stake in this matter.

Many Biblical sins have effects not directly related to a specific act. If I see a warning against something and find massive evidence that its practice produces negative results even if they are indirect I still believe it is wrong. I may do it anyway but I will never defend it as ok. Many wrongs have very indirect negative effects. That does not make them right. If the practice inescapably produces verifiable misery and suffering it is not logical to argue for it's acceptance. I believe it objectively wrong and nature seems to idicate that as well. I claim no more than that and I regard the rationalization of objective wrong as the greatest modern evil that exists but that is a more general issue. BTW artifically reducing the negative effects of something is not an indication that it's practice is correct. I can get away with murder if planned well, won't make it ok.

There's positive AND negative in every single act. Nothing is free from negative. Therefore, everything is wrong?

I am getting uncomfortable a bit.

I've been uncomfortable from the beginning.

If you do not think there is a social stigma I do not think me argueing for one would help. If you think the sun is made of ice I do not think science or data would help. Homosexuals have made a fedaeral case insisting there is one. Are they lyeing or is it true?

The sun's make cannot be compared to the existence of social stigmas, which only exist in the mind, and is likely a result of tribal instincts.

I'm not saying there isn't one; just that it only exists in your subculture, but not in mine. Therefore, it's not something that can enter into the argument, because it's a subjective matter.

After all, there used to be a social stigma against Christianity.

 

[Koldo]

We are not content to just do what we wish we must exhibit our rebellion against traditional moral values by publically acting in ways that will offend anyone that holds them. I find the practice indicative of rebellion. Atheists are not content to not believe. They must destroy faith in others. It is such a well-known modern phenomena that it has been given the title of militant atheism.

This is extremely funny coming from a christian.
Does the word 'evangelization' ring any bells?

 

[Ken Brown]

May I ask if you consider coal miners to be perverted and immoral?

They are plagued by diseases which non-coalminers do not suffer, after all.

Hi AmbiguousGuy, good question. No, I do not consider coal miners to be perverted and immoral, but I do believe that sin is ultimately responsible for all disease and death.

Death and disease comes as a result of our sin, or someone's sin. What sin brings about the diseases associated with coalmining? I would have to say it is the sin of the companies who hire them and not take the proper measures to protect them. The Law states that a railing should be put on rooftops so that if someone were to stumble, they could be protected and catch themselves from falling, and the same principle applies to those companies who hire men to work under the earth, protection should be taken to ensure that no harm comes to them.

Now, the sin of homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the Law, and therefore anyone who engages in this lifestyle is open to the condemnation of disease and death. Paul spoke very clearly of how that lifestyle revealed itself within their fleshly bodies:

(Rom 1:26) For this cause G-d gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(Rom 1:27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hi AmbiguousGuy, good question. No, I do not consider coal miners to be perverted and immoral, but I do believe that sin is ultimately responsible for all disease and death.

Death and disease comes as a result of our sin, or someone's sin. What sin brings about the diseases associated with coalmining? I would have to say it is the sin of the companies who hire them and not take the proper measures to protect them. The Law states that a railing should be put on rooftops so that if someone were to stumble, they could be protected and catch themselves from falling, and the same principle applies to those companies who hire men to work under the earth, protection should be taken to ensure that no harm comes to them.

Now, the sin of homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the Law, and therefore anyone who engages in this lifestyle is open to the condemnation of disease and death. Paul spoke very clearly of how that lifestyle revealed itself within their fleshly bodies:

(Rom 1:26) For this cause G-d gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(Rom 1:27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And what about those homosexuals who simply want to live a safe, monogamous life with their gay partner? They're not likely to catch diseases.

Therefore, what earthly punishment will they receive from this so-called "sin"?

 

[Ken Brown]

And what about those homosexuals who simply want to live a safe, monogamous life with their gay partner? They're not likely to catch diseases.

Therefore, what earthly punishment will they receive from this so-called "sin"?

Hi Riverwolf, Hep B has nothing to do with a monogamous life, and it plagues MSM. Aids started as a result of trying to administer a Hep B vaccine to a group of gay men from NY, and it spread to the rest of the United States through their voracious appetite for sex. Now we have AIDS spread throughout the heterosexual community because Hep B was an active result of their destructive lifestyle. KB

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hi Riverwolf, Hep B has nothing to do with a monogamous life, and it plagues MSM. Aids started as a result of trying to administer a Hep B vaccine to a group of gay men from NY, and it spread to the rest of the United States through their voracious appetite for sex. Now we have AIDS spread throughout the heterosexual community because Hep B was an active result of their destructive lifestyle. KB

Source?

 

[Riverwolf]

Hi Riverwolf, Hep B has nothing to do with a monogamous life, and it plagues MSM. Aids started as a result of trying to administer a Hep B vaccine to a group of gay men from NY, and it spread to the rest of the United States through their voracious appetite for sex. Now we have AIDS spread throughout the heterosexual community because Hep B was an active result of their destructive lifestyle. KB

No... aids began because some adventurous (and, from what I understand, fully heterosexual) people ate monkey brains and spread through promiscuity.

Besides, again, if it has nothing to do with a monogamous life, then it's not a homosexual lifestyle, but, again, a promiscuous lifestyle.

Therefore, gay monogamous couples are not in sin and free of STDs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hi Riverwolf, Hep B has nothing to do with a monogamous life, and it plagues MSM. Aids started as a result of trying to administer a Hep B vaccine to a group of gay men from NY, and it spread to the rest of the United States through their voracious appetite for sex. Now we have AIDS spread throughout the heterosexual community because Hep B was an active result of their destructive lifestyle. KB

Did a little research and found that your information is linked to a thoroughly debunked "conspiracy theory" promoted by HIV/AIDS deniers.

Personally, I would be ashamed to spread such ignorance.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And what about those homosexuals who simply want to live a safe, monogamous life with their gay partner? They're not likely to catch diseases.

Therefore, what earthly punishment will they receive from this so-called "sin"?

Let's be realistic. What percentage of homosexuals do you think actually practice monogamy regardless of how committed they claim to be?

 

[Ken Brown]

Did a little research and found that your information is linked to a thoroughly debunked "conspiracy theory" promoted by HIV/AIDS deniers.

Personally, I would be ashamed to spread such ignorance.

Hi tumbleweed41, please provide debunked links. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Source?

Hi tumbleweed41, here is a copy and paste from a well respected expert on the subject and here is the link, please note all the highlighting with bold and underlined:

The Origin of AIDS and HIV May Not Be What You Have Learned

Most people believe that the origin of HIV, the AIDS virus, derives from some natural evolutionary event. Key among these HIV origin theories is the so called "cut hunter theory" in which a human, allegedly African native, received a bloody wound or infected splash while preparing a chimpanzee carrying a similar virus (i.e., SIVcpz). Most recent research, along with the scientific consensus, holds that the origin of HIV and AIDS could never have happened this way.

In 2001, The Royal Society of London's conference proceedings, which sought to determine the initial cause of AIDS and the origin of HIV, were published for the world to behold. The most highly respected scientists and academicians debated the possibility that HIV-1, the most widespread and deadly human AIDS virus, evolved from accidental vaccine contaminations and subsequent transmissions to mostly African villagers. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) received the focus of interest here since that vaccine was partially derived from growing live polio viruses in monkey kidney cells that have historically proven to be contaminated with cancer viruses such as SV40 -- the 40th monkey virus ever discovered. This virus, like HIV-1, is currently linked by medical scientists to widespread human cancers. By the end of the symposium, the esteemed delegates concluded HIV's origin, and AIDS, was not likely to have come from polio vaccine transmissions as chimpanzees were not proven to have been used during the manufacture of this vaccine

The hepatitis B vaccine was not considered by this esteemed gathering. Suspiciously neglected, this vaccine was produced in chimpanzees during pilot testing conducted in New York City, among gay men, and Central African villagers between 1972 and 1974. This was precisely timed for the emergence of AIDS in these exact, demographically distinct, communities by the late 1970s. The fact that this fact was neglected proves shoddy science or gross negligence at best.
Importantly, among the most respected of all HIV/AIDS origin theorists, the U.S. Government's chief DNA sequence analyst at the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico , Dr. Gerald Myers, reported with his colleagues that the origin of HIV could not have begun with "cut hunters" or other single isolated cross species transmissions (called "zoonosis"). He reported that genetic sequencing studies prove some "punctuated origin of AIDS event" took place during the mid-1970s giving rise, virtually simultaneously, to at least ten different HIV "clades" (or genetic subtypes) associated with ten different distinguishable AIDS epidemics in Africa alone. The most likely cause of this widespread bizarre zoonosis was some man-made (i.e., iatrogenic) event involving chimpanzees.
Myers and his colleagues offered the following best explanation for the origin of HIV: "It is not far-fetched," they wrote, "to imagine the ten or so clades deriving from a single animal (perhaps immunosuppressed and possessing a swarm of variants) [as might have been the case with chimpanzees used in the process of hepatitis B vaccine manufacture] or from a few animals that might have belonged to a single troop or might have been gang-caged together. The number of animals required is secondary to the extent of variation in the source at the time of the zoonotic or iatrogenic event. The [vaccine] hypothesis makes a case for such a punctuated origin . . ." (See: Burr T, Hyman JM and Myers G. The origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: Darwinian or Lamarchkian? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (2001) 356:877-887.)
So if chimpanzees were not used to make the polio vaccine, and therefore the origin of HIV and AIDS did not come from this vaccine nor time period (1950s-early 1960s), then what other vaccine, given during the early to mid 1970s, might have used one or more SIVcpz-infected chimpanzees in the manufacturing process?
The answer to this question was singularly advanced by a Harvard-degreed independent investigator, Dr. Leonard Horowitz in the award winning book Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola -- Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1998; 1-888-508-4787; http:www.tetrahedron.org) Dr. Horowitz unearthed and reprinted stunning scientific documents and National Institutes of Health contracts proving that chimpanzees, contaminated with numerous viruses, were used to produce hundreds of hepatitis B vaccine doses administered to central African Blacks along with homosexual men in New York City at precisely the time Dr. Myers and colleagues claim the origin of HIV "punctuated event" occurred.
Unfortunately, as another Royal Society conference presenter, Dr. Julian Cribb, protested, too little attention is given by drug-industry-influenced medical journals, and the mainstream media, to controversial truths in science regarding the origin of HIV and AIDS. (See: Cribb J. The origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: can science afford to ignore it? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond B (2001) 356:935-938.) As a result, documents such as those published by Dr. Horowitz, and others, showing AIDS apparently derives from contaminated hepatitis B vaccines, have never received adequate attention.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For a FEATURE ARTICLE on this topic by Dr. Leonard Horowitz click here.[/FONT]

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hi tumbleweed41, please provide debunked links. KB

Research SIV and lentiviruses.

Along with;
Origin of HIV type 1 in colonial F... [AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and implications ... [Nature. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI

Direct evidence of extensive diversity of HIV-1 in Ki... [Nature. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

BOY'S 1969 DEATH SUGGESTS AIDS INVADED U.S. SEVERAL TIMES - NYTimes.com

HIV-1 infection in Norwegian family before 1970. [Lancet. 1988] - PubMed - NCBI

Timing the ancestor of the HIV-1 pandemic strains. [Science. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

Direct evidence of extensive diversity of HIV-1 in Ki... [Nature. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hi tumbleweed41, here is a copy and paste from a well respected expert on the subject...

OK, I provided links to peer reviewed scholarly articles in respected publications.

You provide the rantings of a dentist. (Well respected "expert"? Really?)



I'll just let others decide who is to be trusted.

 

[Ken Brown]

OK, I provided links to peer reviewed scholarly articles in respected publications.
You provide the rantings of a dentist. (Well respected "expert"? Really?)
I'll just let others decide who is to be trusted.

Hi tumbleweed41, I went to every link you had and there were no answers, just speculation. And the speculation involved trying to determine a prior event of AIDS before the mid 70's. As we know, AIDS is VERY contagious, and IF a prior event actually took place, WHY didn't it explode into the event that transpired in the late 70's to early 80's? I think that you are really denying what actually happened. Here is an excerpt from another article you should read:

From Alan Cantwell, Jr, MD

The gay experiments that preceded AIDS (1978-1981)

Scientists also discount any connection between the official outbreak of AIDS in 1981 and the experimental hepatitis B vaccine program (1978-1981) at the New York Blood Center in Manhattan that used gays as guinea pigs shortly before the epidemic. Curiously, the exact origin of AIDS in the United States remains unstudied. Health authorities simply blame promiscuous gay men, but never adequately explain how a black heterosexual African disease could have transformed itself exclusively into a white young gay male disease in Manhattan. As mentioned, the first gay AIDS cases erupted in Manhattan a few months after the gay experiment began at the NY Blood Center. When a blood test for HIV became available in the mid-1980s, the Center's stored gay blood specimens were reexamined. Most astonishing is the statistically significant fact that 20% of the gay men who volunteered for the hepatitis B experiment in New York were discovered to be HIV-positive in 1980 (a year before the AIDS epidemic became "official" in 1981). This signifies that Manhattan gays in 1980 had the highest incidence of HIV anywhere in the world, including Africa, the supposed birthplace of HIV and AIDS. And epidemic cases in Africa did not appear until 1982. Although denied by the AIDS establishment, a few researchers are convinced that these vaccine experiments served as the vehicle through which HIV was introduced into the gay population. My own extensive research into the hepatitis B experiments is presented in AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic [1988], and in Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot [1993]. These books also debunk the preposterous "Patient Zero" story of 1987, which claimed a promiscuous gay Canadian airline steward brought AIDS to America. The highly implausible story was sensationalized in the media and served to further obscure the origin of AIDS in America and blame gay promiscuity. Even Montagnier is doubtful that the U.S. epidemic could have developed from a single patient. Never mentioned by proponents of the chimp theory is the fact that the New York Blood Center established a chimp virus laboratory in West Africa in 1974. One of the purposes of VILAB II, at the Liberian Institute for Biomedical Research in Robertsfield, Liberia, was to develop the hepatitis B vaccine in chimps. A few years later this vaccine was inoculated into gays at the Center.

Tumbleweed41, try to use a little common sense. AIDS started almost simultaneously within the young gay male population and African villagers that received a Heb B vaccine that was cultured in chimpanzees. Can you give me any other conclusion as to what caused the OUTBREAK? KB

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hi tumbleweed41, I went to every link you had and there were no answers, just speculation.

I am not sure you understand the full impact of peer review and the methods of scientific investigation.

Tumbleweed41, try to use a little common sense.

Your dentist, and now a dermatologist, are experts in the field of virology?

Present peer reviewed studies to verify what can only be described now as a baseless conspiracy theory in line with Holocaust deniers, Birthers, and Babylonian Brotherhood believers.