Is the media guilty of obscuring the truth about condoms and the spread of AIDS?

The media is guilty of obscuring the truth about AIDS because the problem makes money plus kills people in poor people in undeveloped countries & mainly sluty people in developed counties.

these are the many ways in which AIDS virus makes money.

1. scientific research for a treatment (not a cure) as this can be used alot more than a onestop cure (lucrative but immoral).

2. pharmaceutical sales

3. doctors/nurses are employed

4. hospitals get more government help

5. condom sales go through the roof

6. stops the poor people in africa & asia from populating (save money by not feeding them)

7. kills mainly homosexuals (who are still humans) as they are childless & cant be cared by family when thier old.

8. money to charities.

the bottom line is that condoms dont work, but attitudes to sex can work. further more it doesnt matter where your sources are from as long as they are research well as some of the critics to this arguement refute the credibility because the source is catholic or something else, but the persons problem is thier prejudices to religion who told you not to sleep around in the first place which could of stopped people from getting AIDS.

If you know how the "broken window falicy of economics works" then you will know how this works out.

Um, sorry. Is that the same Catholic church in Africa that has priests impregnating nuns (no condoms in catholocism, remember, and the priests are afraid of AIDS from the locals they usually take advantage of) and then forcing the nuns to get abortions (so much for catholicism) or kicking them out of the church for being pregnant? Yeah, I'm going to trust the stats of those priests.

Secondly, unless condoms were made mandatory at every sexual encounter, with enforcement at gunpoint and unless there was absolutely no other way to get AIDS (other fluids, shared needles, etc.) then why would anyone expect that condoms would guarantee an automatic reduction in AIDS? All it takes is an idiot with AIDS who doesn't like condoms to have sex with another idiot without AIDS and have them beat the odds and spread it.

What condoms do is provide protection for those smart enough to use them when they have sex with someone dumb enough to have not used a condom every time in the past and unlucky enough to suffer the odds.

Add to that that you have catholic scum (and there is no better word for people who would do this) in Africa, telling the unwashed, AIDS-threatened, ignorant and religious masses to not use the condoms they are provided because it is against God's will. The same fornicators who break their own celibacy rules by raping nuns because their advice on condoms has increased the spread of AIDS so much that they don't dare break their own celibacy rules with a local.

I looked up this Edward C. Green, and notice he likes to heavily spice his research with faith-based dogma and interpretations. Since he seems to do so as one very small voice in a scientific discussion in which he is truly overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, I doubt his results very much.

However, at least he is publishing in peer reviewed journals, at times, which is following scientific procedure. I very much doubt if he is finding others coming to the same conclusions, as such huge organization as the WHO, SARC, UNAIDS, NACO, etc. have great evidence of long-term research on how condoms do prevent the spread of HIV.

You are looking at only one professor, with a suspicious religious background, who may be fudging his statistics (intentionally or not) to get the results to fit his beliefs. Ever heard of pious fraud?

By the way, I think you are only focusing on sex as the source of transmission. New York City might also have a higher rate of infection because the higher number of intravenous drug users.

Oh, and how can you divert attention and resources away from abstinence? You don't need any equipment to abstain! Just say- don't have sex. Done.

My proof is that he is publishing in religious magazines (two of your sources are also religious), which do not follow a scientific method. If they did, they might realize that their religion is a little suspicious. And since when are the WHO, SARC, UNAIDS, NACO, etc. straw men? These are serious health and science organizations staffed by some of the best minds on the planet.

By the way, mislabeling me a "dork," or implying that I might think Harvard is a Catholic university (which I don't- that's your presupposition) does not erase my arguments. I am also a professor.

What, no response?

People r more afraid of Aids than of Sin.

They say, use condoms 2 protect your health.

Who is going 2 protect u from the wrath of God???Aids is the punishment u get for having sex outside marriage.

“If condoms were the answer, then why is it that New York City, which under Mayor Michael Bloomberg has given away tens of millions of free condoms, has an HIV rate three times the national average?"

because you've plucked one city out of all of them whilst providing zero data on how many condoms the others give out, for one.

EDIT: and if you won't look at other data, you can't conclude anything about the ratio of condoms to HIV. What if every other city has a grossly reduced rate and gives out more of them?

especially since New York has almost 10 million people in it, which means that for each of the ten million they gave out, there was only one for each citizen, which isn't that many sexual encounters the city is covering...

A question: does spermicidal condoms, aside from subsiding sperm, can they also help to either kill or weaken the HIV virus?

A Catholic website? Now that's not going to be biased.

Give a source please. Otherwise, your argument is entirely invalid.

EDIT: Thanks for the source.

Also, what you've got is quote mining and an argument from ignorance.