I see fat dead people

[Doug69]

>The United States society as a whole condemns fat people and

>has for many decades if not longer. When was the last time

>you saw even a slightly-overweight model in a ad in magazine

>or newspaper?

 

Oh, I agree that most people recognize that fat people are disgusting from an aesthetic perspective. But they don't recieve anywhere near the moral stigma attached to smokers, users of "illicit" drugs, or barebackers.

 

People characterize smokers, drug users and barebackers as evil killers or reckless monsters. By stark contrast, people only characterize fat people as disgusting.

 

>The gay male community is especially contemptuous of fat gay

>males. All one has to do is pick-up a gay newspaper and read

>the personal ads which say "No fats".

 

Again, you are absoultely right that most people don't want to have sex with fat people. But they don't see them as evil or dangerous the way they see smokers, drug users and barebackers.

 

>Loosing weight is extemely difficult. You can quite smoking.

>You can stop drinking alcohol. Can you stop eating?

 

No, but you can stop eating Twinkies, or ice cream, or french fries - and you can start exercising. While it is true that a tiny number of people have a physiological condition that prevents them from being not-fat, the overwhelming majority of fat people choose not to stop being fat, and it makes it so much worse when they shake their rolls and whine that they can't help it.

[KY_TOP]

I had the honor (Yes it was an honor) to be in attendence for a speech by the US Surgeon General last week. The problem of Obesity by US citizens was a large part of his speech. It is a severe problem, but how will you ever get our Country of Fast food junkies to see past their Big Mac or get up from lying in front of their televsion sets is the big challange. It was actually very funny to hear him discribe the stares he recently got when visiting a McDonalds with his son. Everyone wanted to see what the Surgeon General ate.

 

He discussed many of our countries other social ills as well, such as smoking, which also got a good workout here a few weeks ago. The one thing he said that has stuck in my mind is his comment that on any given day in the United States 20% of the population is suffering some type of Mental Crisis. 2 out of every 10 people you meet or talk to today will be having a Mental Health problem, something to think about.

[woodlawn]

>And I can't imagine anyone arguing that the health problems

>which come from being fat (often fatal strokes and

>heart attacks) are no big deal,

 

Show me any post in this thread in which anyone makes such an assertion.

 

> nor can I imagine anyone

>seriously arguing that HIV is clearly worse, particularly

>since, especially now, people live years and years and years

>without even the slightest health problem.

 

"Without even the slightest health problem?" What I've read is that the medications that keep the virus from replicating are themselves highly toxic and usually produce side effects ranging from the uncomfortable to the grotesque. You're saying that is not true?

 

>You claim that I changed the issue, but since I was the one

>who raised the issue, that is clearly wrong.

 

You are mistaken in thinking that you have the right to control the issues that any other poster chooses to address. I responded to your initial post. You then responded to mine and changed the subject from the one I addressed.

 

 

> The issue is, as

>Devon pointed out, which of these afflictions is more damaging

>from a public health perspective

 

>Whether one is

>"reversible" or not is irrelvant to that issue.

 

I don't agree that it is irrelevant. There are existing treatments that can cure obesity. Nothing currently known can cure HIV infection. That makes the two problems totally different from a public health perspective. In my view, the more serious public health problem, provided there is the potential for both to cause death and to affect a large percentage of the population, is the one for which there is no cure.

 

>Many of the

>>illnesses that can result from obesity are curable, some are

>>not. HIV infection is never curable; there is no treatment

>>that can end such an infection.

 

>This is just not so. First of all, many, many people

>die from being fat, as the heart attacks and strokes

>they get kill them. That is not reversable. Why do you keep

>ignoring that?

 

If you will read the first sentence in the above-quoted excerpt from my post, you will see the words "some are not." Do you see those words? You may now apologize for falsely stating that I ignored that point.

 

 

>Second of all, many people have their HIV neutralized with

>drug treatments.

 

That is not true. If you do a bit of research, you will discover that there is currently no method of "neutralizing" HIV. Although current treatments can stop the virus from replicating for a time, it remains in certain of the body's cells indefinitely, ready to begin replication again. Research is currently focusing on how to locate and eliminate the "leftover" virus. No method of doing so is currently known.

 

 

>Why, then, do you

>keep ignoring it?

 

Because I think it's a misleading way of talking about public health problems or about any problem. Last year more Americans were killed by bee stings than as the result of terrorist acts. Does that mean we should forget about taking precautions against terrorism and direct the Department of Homeland Security to focus on teaching bee safety? No, because the two problems are qualitatively different and therefore not analogous to each other. Obesity is curable. Obesity is not contagious. HIV is different in both respects, and both mark it as a profoundly different

 

>>So far as I know,

>>the current medical evidence on HIV is that the infection is

>>incurable and ultimately leads to terminal illness.

 

 

>This is rank bullshit.

 

No.

 

 

There are scores of people taking the

>cocktail, who have been HIV-positive for years and years, and

>yet who are never sick and are no closer to dying than any

>random person. This is not unusual. How the fuck could

>anyone purport to know that the beneficial effects of their

>drug treatment are finite and that they will ultimately die of

>an HIV-related disease? Nobody knows that,

 

I'm sorry to say that simply is not true. There have already been studies showing that the effect of the cocktail wears off for some patients. The unknown is whether it wears off for most or all and in what space of time.

 

> and other than

>you, I have never seen anyone pretend to know it.

 

For a good overview, I suggest you begin reading here:

 

<www.thebody.com/asp/sept00/ibt.html>

[Rick Munroe]

RE: I see woodie and dougie and fat dead people

 

>I found out that there were a lot better things to

>DO to your hole than discuss it. Of course ONE of those things

>still involves my tongue.

 

Works for me! }(

[CT Dick]

>Anybody want desert?

 

First, I think the problem is Sara Lee, not Sahara. ;-)

 

Also, in the article they said funeral directors don't say, "Your mother won't fit in that coffin." They say, "Your mother wouldn't look comfortable in that coffin." What a curious turn of a phrase!

 

Dick

[Doc]

RE: I see woodie and dougie and fat dead people

 

>>>spitting out painfully trite one-liners about cock

>>>and ass and cum over and over and over again.

>>

>>On a message board devoted to escorting and gay sex? How

>>irrelevant!

>

>I hate to break this to you - and I know it will be painful -

>but the purpose of this Board, at least as I read, is not

>exclusively to talk about escorts. In fact, the subtitle of

>the "Lounge" section, as written by the owners of this site,

>reads: "A place to gather and exchange ideas." There are

>certain sections reserved for talking about escorts, but that

>fact should reveal that not all sections are reserved for this

>purpose. So, sadly, this Board does exist for things other

>than discussing you and your hole.

>

>

 

So are you saying that we can go to JennyCraig.com or WeightWatchers.com and discuss male escorts?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Many of the illnesses that can result from obesity are curable, >some are not.

 

The same can be said of the illnesses that can result from HIV. That's why many people who were once close to dying are now strong and in good health, with excellently functioning immune systems and undetectable viral loads. They have experienced what could be called a "reversal" of their conditions at least as dramatic as most successful weight loss stories. Of course, given the low numbers of such success stories compared to the number of Americans whose diets fail, one could reasonably argue that these days, ill health caused by HIV is MORE reversible than obesity and its attendent problems, even if the diagnosis itself doesn't change with regard to HIV status. (That said, HIV diagnoses are often reported in different categories, like "HIV-positive/asymptomatic," "HIV-positive symptomatic," another category to the effect that they have full blown AIDS, etc. Clearly, it is possible to "reverse" the direction of one's movement along this ladder.) Some HIV patients even report that, thanks in part to the lifestyle changes they adopted upon testing positive, they are in BETTER health now than they were before they seroconverted.

 

>>Even if that statement is true (assuming that by 'virtually

>>everyone' we're excepting HIV+ people who didn't die due to

>>car accidents, violent means, drug overdoses, heart disease,

>>lung cancer, etc.), how on earth does that demonstrate that

>>people with HIV won't live long enough to die of other

>causes?

>

>I don't want to get into another discussion in which you are

>asserting as a fact something that no one knows to be a fact

 

If you'll notice, in the passage you quoted above I wasn't asserting anything as a fact; rather, I was questioning you on your apparent assertion that HIV-positive people are doomed to die of HIV-related illnesses. Perhaps you meant to highlight and copy a different bit of text? :+

 

>It is known that certain treatments will postpone such illness; the

>ultimate results of these treatments are not known.

 

This banal observation underscores the fact we DON'T know that "virtually everyone" who's HIV-positive won't survive HIV to die of something else.

[VaHawk]

Thank God, that there are people like you who are cognizant of the facts about AIDS and HIV infection. You are very up to date and knowledgable of the facts, but imo, you are fighting a losing battle trying to inform some of the people on this board. I like how you keep up the battle though.

[woodlawn]

>>Many of the illnesses that can result from obesity are

>curable, >some are not.

 

>The same can be said of the illnesses that can result from

>HIV.

 

But it can't be said of HIV.

 

>That's why many people who were once close to dying are

>now strong and in good health, with excellently functioning

>immune systems and undetectable viral loads. They have

>experienced what could be called a "reversal" of their

>conditions at least as dramatic as most successful weight loss

>stories. Of course, given the low numbers of such success

>stories compared to the number of Americans whose diets fail,

>one could reasonably argue that these days, ill health caused

>by HIV is MORE reversible than obesity and its attendent

>problems,

 

I suppose one could say that a person who has HIV but is currently asymptomatic due to the regimen of drugs that suppress viral replication is "in good health" in the same sense that someone who has cancer but is currently in remission is "in good health." In the case of most cancers there is reliable information on how long remission is likely to last; unfortunately that is not true for HIV patients. I wish it were otherwise.

 

It remains a fact that obesity, if treated early, is invariably curable. HIV is not curable no matter at what stage treatment begins.

 

>Some HIV patients even

>report that, thanks in part to the lifestyle changes they

>adopted upon testing positive, they are in BETTER health now

>than they were before they seroconverted.

 

If the subject were not such a serious one -- perhaps you don't regard it as a serious one, but I do -- it would amuse me to observe that while just last week you accused ME of trying to downplay the danger of barebacking, this week it is YOU who are trying to downplay the danger of HIV infection. The above paragraph sounds as though it was taken from one of those pharmaceutical ads in Advocate or Genre that show buff, handsome young men living with HIV. As Harvey Fierstein pointed out in a recent Times Op-Ed piece, they give a dangerously false impression of what living with HIV is truly like. I've already posted a link in this thread that provides additional information along the same lines.

 

 

>Perhaps you meant to highlight

>and copy a different bit of text?

 

No, I didn't. I was simply referring to your pattern of using that dishonest tactic in an attempt to score points in the arguments you have here and expressing my reluctance to be subjected to it yet again. You use the same tactic in the excerpt at the top of this post.

 

>>It is known that certain treatments will postpone such

>illness; the

>>ultimate results of these treatments are not known.

 

>This banal observation

 

For someone who has indicated he has no worries on the subject of HIV because his chances of remaining negative are "better than excellent," it's awfully strange the way you invariably become hostile whenever you discuss this subject.

 

>underscores the fact we DON'T know that

>"virtually everyone" who's HIV-positive won't survive HIV to

>die of something else.

 

Since there is no way of curing HIV infection, I'm not sure it makes any sense to talk of "surviving" HIV. In fact I'm not sure any part of your sentence makes sense. When a physician tells you that your chances of surviving testicular cancer are better than 80%, he normally doesn't tell you that if you're not one of the lucky 80% you might still live long enough to be run over by a truck rather than die of the disease. If you asked him why he didn't mention that it's possible that a patient whose cancer spreads might be killed by something else before the cancer proves fatal, he'd probably tell you that it's not relevant to a discussion of the disease. I'd agree with that.

[Doug69]

>>>Many of the illnesses that can result from obesity are

>>curable, >some are not.

>

>>The same can be said of the illnesses that can result from

>>HIV.

>

>But it can't be said of HIV.

 

You're engaging in pure sophsitry here. HIV is not harmful except to the extent that it causes illnesses. From a public health perspective with regard to the issue of "reversability" that you keep raising, the only relevant question is whether the illnesses from HIV are "reversable," NOT whether HIV itself is. If HIV causes no illnesses, or if those illnesses are easily treatable, who cares if HIV itself can be "cured"?

 

Put another way, ask yourself this question: Would you rather have a non-fatal stroke and a non-fatal heart attack, or would you rather have asymptomatic HIV? Assuming that one is rational, that should be easy to answer. Asymptomatic HIV is, by definition, harmless; if HIV can be brought to the stage where it is neturalized or produces no illnesses at all -- and it's a lot closer to that stage than is obesity and its illnesses -- it would be no different than, say, having the Hepatitis A virus sitting dormant. It does no harm.

 

The fact is that many of the illnesses caused by HIV are now treatable, and HIV itself can be and, in many people, has been neutralized. Sadly, one cannot say the same thing for heart attacks, strokes, or many of the other health menaces that come from being fat.

 

>I suppose one could say that a person who has HIV but is

>currently asymptomatic due to the regimen of drugs that

>suppress viral replication is "in good health" in the same

>sense that someone who has cancer but is currently in

>remission is "in good health."

 

But you were the one who, just a couple of posts ago, was claiming that someone who had a stroke or a heart attack can be said to be in "good health." If this is true, it is certainly true that someone who has ASYMPTOMATIC HIV is in good health.

 

I know of many, many people who have HIV, and have had it for years, who are in amazingly strong health. I can't say the same for people I know who have had strokes, nor can I say that for anyone I know who is obese.

 

In the case of most cancers

>there is reliable information on how long remission is likely

>to last; unfortunately that is not true for HIV patients. I

>wish it were otherwise.

 

But by saying this, you are negating your own argument. The reason that it can't be said how long one will stay asymptomatic with drug regimens is because many people with HIV have never stopped being asymptomatic as a result of those treatments. As a result, it is impossible to say how long the "remission" will last, becasue it very well may be infinite. At the very least, it has proven to last many years with regard to many HIV-positive people.

 

>If the subject were not such a serious one -- perhaps you

>don't regard it as a serious one, but I do -- it would amuse

>me to observe that while just last week you accused ME of

>trying to downplay the danger of barebacking, this week it is

>YOU who are trying to downplay the danger of HIV infection.

 

Pointing out that others are being hysterical and inaccurate when it comes to HIV is not tantamount to "downplaying" its dangers. The fact is that many, many people with HIV are extraordarinly healthy and have remained so for many, many years. That is a fact, and nobody could say the same thing for anyone who is obese. Pointing out this fact may undermine the horse you're trying to ride, but it's still a fact.

 

Do you acknowledge that we, as a country, lose more money, lose more life-years, lose more productivity from those who eat poorly and don't exercise than we do from smoking, drug use and/or barebacking? That, after all, was the original subject I raised and was the subject to which you objected when answering my post.

[woodlawn]

>You're engaging in pure sophsitry here. HIV is not harmful

>except to the extent that it causes illnesses.

 

 

It is hard for me to believe there is an adult gay man left in America who doesn't know this, but the fact is that HIV damages and can all but destroy the human immune system. Did you really not know that? What did you think the "I" in "HIV" stands for?

 

 

> From a public

>health perspective with regard to the issue of "reversability"

>that you keep raising, the only relevant question is whether

>the illnesses from HIV are "reversable,"

 

 

Your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. The question is whether the DAMAGE TO THE IMMUNE SYSTEM is reversible, and even if it is, whether the virus can be treated in such a manner that it will cease replicating permanently and do no further damage to the immune system of the patient. If the answer to either part of the question is "No," then the patient has a very serious health problem that is never going to go away.

 

>NOT whether HIV

>itself is. If HIV causes no illnesses, or if those illnesses

>are easily treatable, who cares if HIV itself can be "cured"?

 

See above.

 

 

>Asymptomatic HIV is,

>by definition, harmless;

 

Again, it's hard to believe any gay man in America knows so little about this subject. The fact is that throughout the period after infection and before the patient becomes symptomatic the virus is doing damage to the immune system. You sound as though you believe that the virus does nothing for years and then suddenly activates, causing the symptoms of AIDS. That simply is not true. And this information has been given so much play in the media for so long that in order to avoid knowing it a gay man would have to make a real effort to remain in the dark.

 

 

>if HIV can be brought to the stage

>where it is neturalized or produces no illnesses at all

 

As has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is at the moment no known way of "neutralizing" the virus permanently. It can be kept from replicating for a period of time. But no one knows how long that period is.

 

 

>The fact is that many of the illnesses caused by HIV are now

>treatable, and HIV itself can be and, in many people, has been

>neutralized.

 

Again, that is false. There is currently no known way of eliminating the virus from the body and removing the danger that it will begin replicating again and doing further damage to the immune system. I wish there were.

 

>Sadly, one cannot say the same thing for heart

>attacks, strokes, or many of the other health menaces that

>come from being fat.

 

On the contrary, many people who have had heart attacks go on to live a normal lifespan. Cheney has had four heart attacks, and at age 60 he still works an 18 hour day.

 

 

>But you were the one who, just a couple of posts ago, was

>claiming that someone who had a stroke or a heart attack can

>be said to be in "good health."

 

No, I didn't say that. I said that in many cases the effects of these illnesses are reversible. Again, just ask Cheney.

 

>I know of many, many people who have HIV, and have had it for

>years, who are in amazingly strong health. I can't say the

>same for people I know who have had strokes, nor can I say

>that for anyone I know who is obese.

 

About the people you know who have HIV -- can you tell us exactly what damage has been done to their immune systems by the virus?

 

 

>But by saying this, you are negating your own argument. The

>reason that it can't be said how long one will stay

>asymptomatic with drug regimens is because many people with

>HIV have never stopped being asymptomatic

 

I believe that is what is called a "half-truth." The whole truth is that while there are people who have remained asymptomatic for years thanks to drug regimens, there are plenty of others for whom those regimens have worked only briefly or not at all. Under the circumstances it is incredibly misleading to state the former and leave out the latter; it gives a false impression of the state of the science in this area.

 

 

>Pointing out that others are being hysterical and inaccurate

>when it comes to HIV is not tantamount to "downplaying" its

>dangers.

 

In an earlier post you showed yourself to be ignorant of the established fact that for some patients the effects of the drug cocktail wears off. I don't think you are in any position to criticize anyone else for being "inaccurate" here.

 

 

>That is a fact, and nobody could say the same thing

>for anyone who is obese.

 

That is absurd. There are plenty of obese people who have never had a heart attack, stroke, diabetes or any other serious illness. So why would you say that these people are not "healthy"?

 

>Pointing out this fact may undermine

>the horse you're trying to ride, but it's still a fact.

 

No, it isn't a fact.

 

 

>Do you acknowledge that we, as a country, lose more money,

>lose more life-years, lose more productivity from those who

>eat poorly and don't exercise than we do from smoking, drug

>use and/or barebacking? That, after all, was the original

>subject I raised and was the subject to which you objected

>when answering my post.

 

That is not what you said in your original post, and it is not the statement to which I objected. Go back and read the posts yourself if you deny that.

[Doug69]

>>You're engaging in pure sophsitry here. HIV is not harmful

>>except to the extent that it causes illnesses.

>

>It is hard for me to believe there is an adult gay man left in

>America who doesn't know this, but the fact is that HIV

>damages and can all but destroy the human immune system. Did

>you really not know that? What did you think the "I" in "HIV"

>stands for?

 

It's hard for me to believe that you can distort what someone says so completely and think nobody will notice.

 

There are MANY people with HIV who are not only not suffering from an obvious sickness, but whose immune systems are NOT being ravaged, or even harmed, by the virus. It is hard for me to believe that there is an adult gay man left in America who doesn't know this, but there are tests that are routinely administered to such people to test the presence of the HIV viral load and t-cell count, and those tests reveal that, particularly (although not exclusively) for those taking the drug regimen, HIV has done little, if any, harm to their immune system.

 

As I previously explained (and you, understandably, ignored), some people with HIV even have the virus disappear to undetectable levels, so that their blood and immune system are clinically indistinguishable from someone who is HIV-negative.

 

When we speak of asymptomatic, healthy people with HIV, we are not speaking about people whose immune system has been destroyed and it's just a matter of time before an infection strikes. We are talking about people with HIV whose immune systems are in tact and who are not sick. Did you not know about the not uncommon existence of such people? It seems you didn't. You should try to get out of the 1980s.

 

>>Sadly, one cannot say the same thing for heart

>>attacks, strokes, or many of the other health menaces that

>>come from being fat.

>

>On the contrary, many people who have had heart attacks go on

>to live a normal lifespan. Cheney has had four heart attacks,

>and at age 60 he still works an 18 hour day.

 

How can you not see your monumental illogic? Dick Cheney is an example of someone who had heart attacks but can still work. There are litearlly MILLIONS of people with HIV who can work, run, play, and do anything.

 

Sure - many people who have heart attacks go on to have a normal lifespan - albeit usually with restrictions - but many, many don't. Many people with HIV go on to live a normal life span with no restrictions. Do you dispute that?

 

>That is absurd. There are plenty of obese people who have

>never had a heart attack, stroke, diabetes or any other

>serious illness. So why would you say that these people are

>not "healthy"?

 

Because obese people can't walk up a flight of stairs without choking on their lungs. The people I know with HIV run marathons, lift weights, play tennis - do you know any obese people who do that?

 

>>Do you acknowledge that we, as a country, lose more money,

>>lose more life-years, lose more productivity from those who

>>eat poorly and don't exercise than we do from smoking, drug

>>use and/or barebacking? That, after all, was the original

>>subject I raised and was the subject to which you objected

>>when answering my post.

>

>That is not what you said in your original post, and it is not

>the statement to which I objected. Go back and read the posts

>yourself if you deny that.

 

Re-read my first post - it's the only point I made.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

To address a couple of points in addition to those made by Doug69 above:

 

>It remains a fact that obesity, if treated early, is

>invariably curable.

 

"If treated early?" "INVARIABLY curable?" What does that mean? That if people try to lose weight as soon as they've gained it they will invariably succeed? Are all "treatments" for obesity successful? At any rate, childhood obesity is at an all-time high (with not-so-reversible consequences for those children's future health) and the number of adult Americans suffering and/or dying from obesity-related illnesses should be enough to persuade you that the "early treatment" of obesity is nowhere near enough of a widespread phenomenon to justify trivializing obesity as a health concern.

 

>>Some HIV patients even

>>report that, thanks in part to the lifestyle changes they

>>adopted upon testing positive, they are in BETTER health now

>>than they were before they seroconverted.

 

>The above paragraph sounds as though it was taken from one of

>those pharmaceutical ads in Advocate or Genre that show buff,

>handsome young men living with HIV.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but I was paraphrasing actual conversations with poz friends of mine. When one is openly gay, you see, one doesn't have to rely on the Advocate, Genre, or Harvey Fierstein to make regular contact with poz guys who talk freely about what living with HIV is like. My friends make no bones about the side effects they experience, but they also emphatically savor and appreciate their good health. I'm not selling pharmaceuticals, but nor am I buying into hysteria.

 

>>This banal observation

>

>For someone who has indicated he has no worries on the subject

>of HIV because his chances of remaining negative are "better

>than excellent," it's awfully strange the way you invariably

>become hostile whenever you discuss this subject.

 

What's awfully strange is that the man who calls other posters names like "Shitboy" carps about "hostility" when someone calls one of his observations banal.

>

>>underscores the fact we DON'T know that

>>"virtually everyone" who's HIV-positive won't survive HIV to

>>die of something else.

>

>When a physician

>tells you that your chances of surviving testicular cancer are

>better than 80%, he normally doesn't tell you that if you're

>not one of the lucky 80% you might still live long enough to

>be run over by a truck rather than die of the disease. If you

>asked him why he didn't mention that it's possible that a

>patient whose cancer spreads might be killed by something else

>before the cancer proves fatal, he'd probably tell you that

>it's not relevant to a discussion of the disease. I'd agree

>with that.

 

You were the one making the "point" that "virtually everyone who has been infected with HIV and has died, has died of an

HIV-related illness," and then trying to extrapolate from that that everyone now living who has HIV is doomed to die from HIV. Pointing out that that might not be the case most certainly is relevant to the discussion, though inconvenient for your argument.

[Doug69]

Woodlawn - how about some nice fat facts to go with your chocolate cake:

___________________________________________________________

 

The Fattening of America

More people are fat or obese, says government report

 

By Neil Sherman

HealthScout Reporter

(http://body.subportal.com/health/Nutrition_Fitness_Looks/Weight_Control/Obesity/106551.html)

 

FRIDAY, Dec. 15 (HealthScout) -- The next time someone tells you you're in Fat City, you just might be. A government report released yesterday shows that 61 percent of adult Americans are now considered overweight.

 

And a growing number of belts are being loosened even more, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). One in four Americans are now considered obese, up 2 percent from the last survey in 1994. Obese means a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 30 percent of ideal body weight.

 

* * * *

 

The weight gain has real health implications, Pazder warns. "We're seeing heart disease in younger people, high blood pressure in children, and what we used to call maturity-onset [Type II] diabetes showing up in people in their 20s and 30s. Even kids in high school are showing up with it."

 

Obesity ranks second only to smoking as a cause of preventable death, says the CDC. Overweight people are twice as likely to develop Type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease and are 40 percent more likely to die prematurely, the CDC says.

 

What To Do

 

More exercise is the solution, Pazder says. "It boils down to basics. Exercise has to be as regular as brushing your teeth. It doesn't mean you have to join the gym. You can just go out and walk 20 to 30 minutes a day; that would be a good start."

______________________________________________________________

 

It's the second highest cause of preventable deaths (and barebacking isn't first). It makes people 40% more likely to die prematurely. I'd say that anyone who contests that this is a huge public health problem, or anyone who claims that barebacking is more dangerous, is thinking rather irrationally.

 

As for whether fat people are healthy, a picture is worth a thousand words:

 

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/groups/g_4830224/Big+Guts/PIG.jpg?bcoKee_AwijSigqQ

 

You think that guy might not be totally healthy?

[woodlawn]

>>It remains a fact that obesity, if treated early, is

>>invariably curable.

 

>"If treated early?" "INVARIABLY curable?" What does that

>mean?

 

It means that there are not one but a variety of treatments that can eliminate obesity, from diet changes to medication to surgery, and that the earlier the condition is treated the easier it is to treat. There is no treatment that can eliminate HIV.

 

>Are all "treatments"

>for obesity successful?

 

No. But for every obese person there is a treatment that CAN be successful if treatment protocols are complied with. I sorry to say one can't say the same about HIV. I wish one could.

 

>should be enough to persuade you that the "early

>treatment" of obesity is nowhere near enough of a widespread

>phenomenon

 

I said the treatments exist. I said nothing about how common it is for people to use them. Do you not understand the difference between those two things?

 

>to justify trivializing obesity as a health

>concern.

 

I defy you to point to any post of mine stating that obesity is a trivial matter or should not be of serious concern to public health officials.

 

>Sorry to disappoint you, but I was paraphrasing actual

>conversations with poz friends of mine.

 

In other words, you have anecdotal evidence that tells us nothing about the actual efficacy of these treatments. What you are saying is about as useful as if you were to tell us that everyone you've met who has had testicular cancer has died of it. That could be a true statement despite the fact that more than 80% of people who contract that type of cancer do NOT die of it.

 

>When one is openly

>gay, you see, one doesn't have to rely on the Advocate, Genre,

>or Harvey Fierstein to make regular contact with poz guys who

>talk freely about what living with HIV is like.

 

Passing over the normal insulting tone of your remark, "making regular contact with poz guys" tells you absolutely nothing about how effective these treatments are over the entire population of those who take them. It doesn't provide any useful information for this discussion, it just gives you a chance to show what a cool lifestyle you have. Ever thought about joining Narcissists Anonymous?

 

>I'm

>not selling pharmaceuticals, but nor am I buying into

>hysteria.

 

And this is coming from the same person who accused me of "downplaying" the danger of barebacking just last week. Now you accuse me of hysteria because I point out that HIV is incurable. Is there any difference between you and a weathervane, other than that you have a penis?

 

If you had read the column by Fierstein you might realize that a statement like the one you made about some HIV patients being HEALTHIER now than before they were infected would be enough to send him into apoplexy. Your comments are EXACTLY the type he was complaining about.

 

>What's awfully strange is that the man who calls other posters

>names like "Shitboy" carps about "hostility" when someone

>calls one of his observations banal.

 

Nothing strange about it. As always I let other people take the first shot when it comes to insults and personal attacks. And you always take advantage of that. It's your nature.

 

>Pointing out that that might not be the case most

>certainly is relevant to the discussion, though inconvenient

>for your argument.

 

I think my hypothetical physician would say it's just a stupid comment from someone who, only a week after suggesting that gays band together to pressure those who bareback because of the risk of HIV infection, is now taking the position that HIV infection is not that big a deal.

[woodlawn]

>Woodlawn - how about some nice fat facts to go with your

>chocolate cake:

 

How about telling us when you have reached the stage of emotional development at which you don't have to throw childish insults at another person just because he disagrees with you? Unless of course you think you will never get to that point.

 

 

>You think that guy might not be totally healthy?

 

Why would I waste my time looking at more anecdotal evidence? It can be used to prove just about anything. If I post a link to a picture of someone whose body has been wasted by AIDS, what would that prove -- except that I am capable of behaving just as childishly as you.

[Doug69]

>How about telling us when you have reached the stage of

>emotional development at which you don't have to throw

>childish insults at another person just because he disagrees

>with you? Unless of course you think you will never get to

>that point.

 

Where was the insult? It must have been really subtle, because I missed it; didn't see it when I went to look for it; and I was the author of it. I have no idea whether you're fat or not, so I can't imagine how or why anything I said would be construed by you as some personal insult?

 

Accusing me of engaging in personal insults is particularly odd when responding to a post where I posted, for the first time in this discussion, actual published facts, from the CDC and others, about the public health menace posed by fat people.

 

>Why would I waste my time looking at more anecdotal evidence?

>It can be used to prove just about anything. If I post a link

>to a picture of someone whose body has been wasted by AIDS,

>what would that prove -- except that I am capable of behaving

>just as childishly as you.

 

Actually, pictures can be illustrative. That's why it's said that they're worth a thousand words. The picture I posted was of someone who was extremely fat but had no apparent signs of heart disease or a stroke. His obesity itself, without any other conditions, renders him unhealthy in the extreme. Since you asked why an obese person with no heart disesase would be unhealthy, that photograph answers your question.

[woodlawn]

>>>You're engaging in pure sophsitry here. HIV is not

>harmful

>>>except to the extent that it causes illnesses.

 

>>It is hard for me to believe there is an adult gay man left

>in

>>America who doesn't know this, but the fact is that HIV

>>damages and can all but destroy the human immune system.

 

>It's hard for me to believe that you can distort what someone

>says so completely and think nobody will notice.

 

Distort? What you said is quoted above for all to see. I'll repeat it again here:

 

>HIV is not harmful except to the extent that it causes illnesses.>

 

>There are MANY people with HIV who are not only not suffering

>from an obvious sickness, but whose immune systems are NOT

>being ravaged, or even harmed, by the virus.

 

And there are thousands upon thousands of other people who are not even aware that they are infected but who have been infected for years, have not received any treatment, and whose immune systems have suffered significant damage as the virus replicates in their bodies. Only an idiot would suggest that HIV "is not harmful" to those people even though the signs of illness are so slight that they are not even aware of the problem.

 

 

>As I previously explained (and you, understandably, ignored),

>some people with HIV even have the virus disappear to

>undetectable levels, so that their blood and immune system are

>clinically indistinguishable from someone who is

>HIV-negative.

 

So what? That doesn't change what I said -- which is that there is no way of removing the virus from their bodies, and that current medical science believes that if treatment stops (or ceases to be effective) the virus will once again begin replicating. You need to get your head around the notion that once you are infected with HIV, IT NEVER GOES AWAY. Got it?

 

>When we speak of asymptomatic, healthy people with HIV, we

>are not speaking about people whose immune system has been

>destroyed and it's just a matter of time before an infection

>strikes. We are talking about people with HIV whose immune

>systems are in tact and who are not sick. Did you not know

>about the not uncommon existence of such people?

 

Actually I think the existence of such people is VERY uncommon, if you compare their numbers to the numbers of people who have been infected and do NOT meet that description. You have data to the contrary? Let's see it.

 

 

>It seems you

>didn't. You should try to get out of the 1980s.

 

You should try to remember that you are not in middle school any longer. If you are going to mix with adults you should make an effort to act like one.

 

>>On the contrary, many people who have had heart attacks go

>on

>>to live a normal lifespan. Cheney has had four heart

>attacks,

>>and at age 60 he still works an 18 hour day.

 

>How can you not see your monumental illogic?

 

Because it doesn't exist.

 

>Dick Cheney is

>an example of someone who had heart attacks but can still

>work. There are litearlly MILLIONS of people with HIV who can

>work, run, play, and do anything.

 

Oh? And how many of those who are infected at about the same time Cheney had his first heart attack -- when he was in his early 30s, I believe -- will still be able to do the things Cheney does 30 years later? The correct answer is, we simply don't know. We don't know if ANY will be able to.

 

 

>Many people with HIV go on to live a normal life

>span with no restrictions. Do you dispute that?

 

Yes. How many of them have lived to, shall we say, age 70 or above and have died of illness in no way related to HIV? You keep saying "many, many, many." Okay, how many?

 

>Because obese people can't walk up a flight of stairs without

>choking on their lungs. The people I know with HIV run

>marathons, lift weights, play tennis - do you know any obese

>people who do that?

 

Sure. I have a relative who for his entire adult life was 5'8'' and over 200 pounds -- usually between 210 and 240. He played golf at least twice a week and until he reached his late 60s never had a serious illness -- except for the malaria he contracted while serving with General Macarthur in the Philippines. He fought at the Battle of Leyte and won the Bronze Star -- they usually don't give those to people who can't get up a flight of stairs.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I think my hypothetical physician would say it's just a stupid

>comment from someone who, only a week after suggesting that

>gays band together to pressure those who bareback because of

>the risk of HIV infection, is now taking the position that HIV

>infection is not that big a deal.

 

Well, I'll defer to your greater familiarity with the thoughts of your hypothetical physician and any of the other imaginary creatures that populate your world. But you and your "physician" are wrong on both counts: I haven't suggested a pressure campaign or any particular remedy for the barebacking problem, only that criticizing barebacking doesn't make gay men who support such campaigns hypocrites, even if (gasp!) they hire prostitutes. And I have certainly never said that HIV is not a big deal. But even though he and I disagreed last week in our barebacking discussion, I can't deny that Doug69 makes a valid point when he says that obesity resulting from poor diet and exercise represents a greater public health concern than other risk behaviors, including barebacking, which often come in for harsher disapproval. In order to dispute this, you have had to dodge repeatedly the staggering social costs, health problems and death toll of obesity while simultaneously insisting that all HIV-positive people are doomed to die of HIV-related illnesses.

[woodlawn]

>someone who, only a week after suggesting that

>>gays band together to pressure those who bareback because of

>>the risk of HIV infection, is now taking the position that

>HIV

>>infection is not that big a deal.

 

 

>Well, I'll defer to your greater familiarity with the thoughts

>of your hypothetical physician and any of the other imaginary

>creatures that populate your world.

 

When I'm not around where do you go to satisfy your evident desire to throw shit at other people?

 

 

>I haven't suggested a

>pressure campaign or any particular remedy for the barebacking

>problem,

 

Yes, you did. Why am I not surprised that you now deny it?

 

 

>And I have certainly never said that

>HIV is not a big deal.

 

Right. Just like Bush never actually said that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

 

>In order to

>dispute this, you have had to dodge repeatedly the staggering

>social costs, health problems and death toll of obesity

 

Such a liar! Are you in Al Franken's book? Show me one post in which I deny the existence of these things.

 

>while

>simultaneously insisting that all HIV-positive people are

>doomed to die of HIV-related illnesses.

 

Do you know of any medical authority stating that currently available treatments will suppress HIV permanently? If so, let's see it.

[woodlawn]

>Where was the insult? It must have been really subtle,

>because I missed it.

 

If you're telling me that subtlety has never been your strong point, you will get no argument here.

 

>Accusing me of engaging in personal insults is particularly

>odd when responding to a post where I posted, for the first

>time in this discussion, actual published facts, from the CDC

>and others, about the public health menace posed by fat

>people.

 

Did that remark about "chocolate cake" also come from the CDC? It really doesn't seem like their style.

 

>Actually, pictures can be illustrative.

 

They can illustrate a point, but not prove it.

 

 

>His obesity itself, without any

>other conditions, renders him unhealthy in the extreme.

 

It does? If taking a drug cocktail that gives one perpetual and uncontrollable diarrhea does not make one "unhealthy" then in what sense does being fat, without more, make one "unhealthy"?

 

> Since

>you asked why an obese person with no heart disesase would be

>unhealthy, that photograph answers your question.

 

Do you understand the difference between "unhealthy" and "unlovely"?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>In order to

>>dispute this, you have had to dodge repeatedly the

>staggering

>>social costs, health problems and death toll of obesity

>

>Such a liar! Are you in Al Franken's book? Show me one post

>in which I deny the existence of these things.

 

No, unlike you, Al Franken isn't on a mission to denounce prostitution and all other forms of casual sex, so he hasn't felt the need to attack me. It's not exactly honest of you, however, to respond to my charge of DODGING a point by saying that you don't DENY the truth of it. You haven't DENIED the truth of it because you can't. I'll be happy to provide a number of examples of you DODGING the issue described above:

 

When Doug69 said: "Regardless of any of these issues, poor diet and lack of exercise kill more people, create more health risks, and result in greater financial loss from a public health perspective. That point is irrefutable, and so when searching out public health hazards to preach about, I can't imagine that anyone would skip over this one, since it's the worst one."

 

...you conspicuously avoided addressing his point in your reply.

 

When I said that "without wanting to speak for Doug69, I don't think he was primarily commenting on whether it is "preferable" to get HIV or to get fat...I think he might have meant that, whether it's "reversible" or not, in practice obesity takes a greater toll on our society (in a variety of forms which he outlined above) than HIV."

 

Again, you skipped over that part of my message.

 

This next example was so typically you. When Doug69 said: "The issue is, as Devon pointed out, which of these afflictions is more damaging from a public health perspective - i.e., which costs more money, more loss of life, etc. The answer is, and always has been, people being fat and not exercising. Whether one is "reversible" or not is irrelvant to that issue."

 

...when replying to this particular point, you highlighted the whole quote but erased which part? Only the least convenient one for your argument: " - i.e., which costs more money, more loss of life, etc. The answer is, and always has been, people being fat and not exercising." A classic dodge.

 

Next Doug69 said: "on the aggregate, more people die from being fat; more money is lost; there are more sick days and lost productivity. That is the only issue I raised - that from a public health perspective, the society is harmed far more by fat people than smokers, drug users or barebackers. That is a fact, and it is the one I raised. Why, then, do you keep ignoring it?"

 

...you tried to liken comparing the number of deaths and social costs of two different types of risk behavior to comparing deaths BUT NOT social costs of bee stings and terrorist attacks, when the social costs of the latter are beyond staggering. A truly pathetic and cynical dodge.

 

Finally, when Doug69 asked, "Do you acknowledge that we, as a country, lose more money, lose more life-years, lose more productivity from those who eat poorly and don't exercise than we do from smoking, drug use and/or barebacking? That, after all, was the original subject I raised and was the subject to which you objected when answering my post."

 

Your only response was to deny that he had said that in his original post. When Doug69 told you to re-read his original post, that that was the only point he HAD made, you ignored him.

 

Why have you repeatedly dodged the staggering social costs, health problems and death toll of obesity? Perhaps because you don't like the implications of Doug69's point: that carnal and other "illicit" pleasures are unfairly singled out for moral disapproval by people who would rather ignore the more signifcant public health problems posed by more their own, more banal forms of risky behavior. After all, you're constantly citing the outraged sensibilities of middle Americans who don't approve of prostitution, even though many of those Americans are engaged in the very risk behavior that is the "second leading cause of preventable deaths" in this country. Doug69 brought that up, too, of course, but -- surprise, surprise! --that point once again escaped your highlighting cursor.

[Trixie]

Yick, I hate it when I get all sanctimonious! Sorry about that, and good on you Bilbo!!

[woodlawn]

>No, unlike you, Al Franken isn't on a mission to denounce

>prostitution and all other forms of casual sex, so he hasn't

>felt the need to attack me.

 

Considering the two lies you just told in the above sentence alone, I think he'd find you a very juicy subject for his hobby of exposing liars and hypocrites.

 

>It's not exactly honest of you,

>however, to respond to my charge of DODGING a point by saying

>that you don't DENY the truth of it. You haven't DENIED the

>truth of it because you can't. I'll be happy to provide a

>number of examples of you DODGING the issue described above:

 

Your "list" is just as dishonest and hypocritical as the rest of your arguments. If failing to respond directly to each and every argument made in someone else's post is "dodging," then how can you possibly complain to me about a practice in which you yourself indulge constantly?

 

To give just one prominent example from our discussion on barebacking: you never bothered to respond to my point that your repeated accusation about a rise in HIV infections caused by barebacking is based on data that are inconclusive and can't possibly support what you keep insisting is a fact. I didn't accuse you of "dodging" because of your behavior in that regard -- I just assumed anyone following the discussion would note that you didn't respond to what I said because there IS no response.

 

 

>When Doug69 said: "Regardless of any of these issues, poor

>diet and lack of exercise kill more people, create more health

>risks, and result in greater financial loss from a public

>health perspective. That point is irrefutable,

 

>you conspicuously avoided addressing his point in your

>reply.

 

I didn't address it because I don't disagree with it. Despite your attempts to portray my remarks otherwise, I've never denied the serious public health implications of obesity. But I HAVE denied something else he asserted. He cited this message board as evidence that HIV receives far more attention as a public health problem than obesity. I made the point that the people who post here are so atypical that citing this board as evidence of what Americans as a group are thinking is utterly ridiculous. By your standards he "dodged" that one. Or I am the only poster to whom your rule against "dodging" applies? Apparently so.

 

 

>Perhaps because

>you don't like the implications of Doug69's point: that carnal

>and other "illicit" pleasures are unfairly singled out for

>moral disapproval by people who would rather ignore the more

>signifcant public health problems posed by more their own,

>more banal forms of risky behavior. After all, you're

>constantly citing the outraged sensibilities of middle

>Americans who don't approve of prostitution, even though many

>of those Americans are engaged in the very risk behavior that

>is the "second leading cause of preventable deaths" in this

>country.

 

Even you should be able to understand one rather important difference between obesity and HIV infection: obesity isn't contagious. So all those chubby middle Americans who aren't taking care of themselves can honestly point to the fact that they are NOT taking risks with the health of any person OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. While gay men who live a life of sexual promiscuity can't say the same.

 

Doug has repeatedly lambasted me and others on this board for disagreeing with the libertarian idea that society has no right to interfere with the behavior of any individual so long as that behavior "does not directly harm another person." If that's what he believes, he must find himself agreeing that the behavior of promiscuous gay men is far more to be censured by society than that of overeaters.

 

As for you, I will simply point out that in this thread and the one on barebacking you have accused me of:

 

1. "fearmongering" because I insisted that promiscuous sex, even with a condom, can be risky.

 

2. "downplaying" the danger of barebacking because I pointed out that many of the critics of barebacking are themselves people whose behavior poses a public health risk.

 

3. "hysteria" because I keep mentioning that there is currently no cure for HIV.

 

I'll characterize your statements here and his by quoting from a column written by Harvey Fierstein in the New York Times on July 31.

 

"In our effort to remove the stigma of having AIDS, have we created a culture of disease? We all see the ads for HIV drugs. They illustrate hot muscular men living life to the fullest thanks to modern science. Other ads show couples holding hands, sending the message that the road to true love and happiness is being HIV positive.

 

"Is that message: You're going to be OK? (Which is terrific.) Or is it: You want to be special? Get AIDS. HIV equals popularity and acceptance. (Which would be tragic.)

 

"My heart goes out to all who have the infection. But while I pledge my energies and resources to the fight for a cure, quality care and justice, I still think we need to examine what we're teaching our gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and straight youth.

 

"In my opinion, the messages the drug companies are spreading are lies. The truth is that AIDS is not fun. It's not sexy or manageable. AIDS is a debilitating, deforming, terminal and incurable disease. HIV drugs can bring on heart, kidney and liver disease, as well as a host of daily discomforts.

 

"Unlike the photos in the ads we see, most of my friends who are on drug cocktails are not having the time of their lives. They spend mornings in the bathroom throwing up or suffering from diarrhea. They spend afternoons at doctor's appointments, clinics and pharmacies. And they spend endless evenings planning their estates and trying to make ends meet because they are not well enough to support themselves and their new drug habit. And those are just the friends for whom the drugs work. For many women the cocktails are nothing but a drain on finance, internal organs and stamina."

 

I really do wish that you and Doug would stop spreading misinformation about this disease.

[Doug69]

>Your "list" is just as dishonest and hypocritical as the rest

>of your arguments. If failing to respond directly to each and

>every argument made in someone else's post is "dodging," then

>how can you possibly complain to me about a practice in which

>you yourself indulge constantly?

 

There's a big difference - fundamental, actually - between: (a) not responding to every single marginal comment in a post to which one is responding (as everyone here, at some point, neglects to do), and (b) simply ignoring the primary point of the discussion and instead raising irrelevancies over and over (as you have done again and again in this thread, as Devon not only pointed out but also quite thoroughly documented).

 

I was the one who started this sub-thread by pointing out that overeating and fatness cause far more damage from a public health perspective than does barebacking, for all the reasons I listed. Although you NOW say you don't disgaree with that - because it's not subject to disagreement, since it's factually true - your first post in this thread expressed objection to the notion that the harm from fatness can even be compared to the harm from HIV.

 

In making this "point," your primary assertion, made again and again, is that HIV is not reversable while obesity is. Who the fuck cares? This has nothing to do with the point anyone has raised. In assessing whether a particular physiological condition is damaging from a public health perspective, the "reversability" of the condition is but one of MANY, MANY factors one would consider - and it's not even a very important one. Many conditions are irreversable and yet relatively benign (such as herpes, or hepatitis A), and others are sometimes reversable yet extraoardinarily destructive (such as pancreatic cancer, or obesity).

 

By harping over and over and over on the issue of whether HIV and obesity are reversable, you have completely dodged the issue. HIV may not be reversable, while obesity may, in some theoretical sense, be reversable, but the fact remains that overeating/being fat is infinitely more destructive to the public health than is bareabacking/HIV - that is the only point. By squaking endlessly over the red herring of the reversability of HIV v. obesity, all you do is dodge the issue, which is what makes Devon so correct.

 

>I didn't address it because I don't disagree with it. Despite

>your attempts to portray my remarks otherwise, I've never

>denied the serious public health implications of obesity. But

>I HAVE denied something else he asserted. He cited this

>message board as evidence that HIV receives far more attention

>as a public health problem than obesity. I made the point

>that the people who post here are so atypical that citing this

>board as evidence of what Americans as a group are thinking is

>utterly ridiculous.

 

False. Your first post dealt PRIMARILY with your claim that obesity and HIV are not analgous because HIV is worse due to the fact that it is irreversable, while obesity isn't. I don't blame you for being embarrassed at making this point so shrilly, but the sad part (for you) about having a message board is that once you spittle something out, you can't then deny that you said it, try as you might.

 

>Even you should be able to understand one rather important

>difference between obesity and HIV infection: obesity isn't

>contagious. So all those chubby middle Americans who aren't

>taking care of themselves can honestly point to the fact that

>they are NOT taking risks with the health of any person OTHER

>THAN THEMSELVES. While gay men who live a life of sexual

>promiscuity can't say the same.

 

This is just so inane for so many reasons. Here are a few:

 

First, piggish eating habits by parents virtually always get passed along to their fat, unhealthy children. If fat white people in the Midwest are eating bacon cheesebergers from McDonalds for dinner, they aren't feeding their kids raw vegetables and nuts. They very frequently pass on their sickly, unhealthy habits to their children - yet another irony, in that people preach against gay sex practices and HIV on the ground that they endanger the "children," as they shove fat food down their kids' throats which will give them strokes, bone disease, and heart attacks.

 

Second, unless someone with HIV is raping someone else or infecting a child (a tiny minority of cases), any person to whom HIV is transmitted as a result of bareabacking or other sexual practices is voluntarily assuming the risk of getting HIV. The blame lies entirely with them, not with the transmittor. Unlike the fat parents who endanger their helpless children, such gay men do not impose any risks on anyone who does not consent to those risks.

 

Third, as usual, your point dodges the issue - since, regardless of contagiousness (as is true for reversability) - this point does not in any way negate the fact that obesity is a far worse public health problem than barebacking. That's the point that began the discussion, the one to which you initially responded - remember?

 

>Doug has repeatedly lambasted me and others on this board for

>disagreeing with the libertarian idea that society has no

>right to interfere with the behavior of any individual so long

>as that behavior "does not directly harm another person." If

>that's what he believes, he must find himself agreeing that

>the behavior of promiscuous gay men is far more to be censured

>by society than that of overeaters.

 

You left out an important part of LIBERTY - namely, one has the right to do anything that does not directly harm others without their consent. Why did you leave the bolded part out? Unlike parents who shove fat food down their kids' throats and make them fat, adult gay men who have sex with other consenting adult gay men do no such thing.

 

>I really do wish that you and Doug would stop spreading

>misinformation about this disease.

 

Please exceprt one thing that he or I said about HIV that constitutes "misinformation about this disease." There is none. The only "misinformation" is the HIV = AIDS = DEATH mantra that you hypnotically repeat like some paranoid, misinformed lunatic stuck in 1985.

 

Sorry to tell you this, but science HAS generated significant advances since then with regard to HIV treatment, rendering the only "misinformation about this disease" to be your Grim Reaper insistence that anyone who gets HIV is inevitably soon to croak in a pile of lesions and blindness. One fleetingly wonders why you are so eager to cling to this falsely grim picture, but then one immediately realizes it's best not to delve too deeply into that question.