-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
AIDS cure?
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
Silent Death
lemme get one or two licks
teiresias said:
Last I checked I could give a rats ass about anything outside the US.
Squirrel Killer
Member
First off... none of what follows is intended to persuade anyone that unsafe sex is in any way acceptable. That said, hetero female -> hetero male HIV transmission has long been known to be less prevelent that male -> male or male -> female transmission. Additionally,
Circumcision May Cut HIV Risk
...and...
CKR-5 -- Understanding the News (an explaination of the effect that a lack of the CKR-5 cellular receptor has on HIV transmission)
...help explain why that female -> male discrepancy exists, especially for circumsized caucasian males of European decent.
Regardless of these tidbits... the only way to avoid contracting HIV is to either a) abstain from sexual intercourse, or b) practice safe sex, every time with every partner. With an obvious exception of having a monogomus relationship with a tested partner. And before white males get cocky, remember... chlamydia, genital warts, gonorrhea, hepatitis, herpes, pubic lice, syphilis, etc... don't care if you're an innie or an outie, or what color skin you have.
Circumcision May Cut HIV Risk
...and...
CKR-5 -- Understanding the News (an explaination of the effect that a lack of the CKR-5 cellular receptor has on HIV transmission)
...help explain why that female -> male discrepancy exists, especially for circumsized caucasian males of European decent.
Regardless of these tidbits... the only way to avoid contracting HIV is to either a) abstain from sexual intercourse, or b) practice safe sex, every time with every partner. With an obvious exception of having a monogomus relationship with a tested partner. And before white males get cocky, remember... chlamydia, genital warts, gonorrhea, hepatitis, herpes, pubic lice, syphilis, etc... don't care if you're an innie or an outie, or what color skin you have.
Silent Death
lemme get one or two licks
Phoenix said:
Huh? Why don't you refute with your own words rather than trying to be cute and argue using smart-alecky remarks. There is nothing in those three posts you pasted that contradicted one another. I will say that it was a poor choice of words on my part to say "virtually no risk," What I should have said was there is a greatly lessened risk of contracting AIDS if you are not engaging in anal sex homo or hetero or shooting up with dirty needles.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Before we all pat ourselves on the back for identifing a contradiction, let's keep in mind that Kano is right... do a degree. Hetersexual male do have a lower risk, although certainly not so low of a risk as to justify Kano's "you really don't have to worry about AIDS" claim.
BigGreenMat
Member
http://www.hopkins-aids.edu/publications/report/may00_1.html
Well if you are talking per encounter it is far lower.
Oh and I apologize for letting this get out. A lot of the people on this board should not get their hands on such knowledge.
Well if you are talking per encounter it is far lower.
Oh and I apologize for letting this get out. A lot of the people on this board should not get their hands on such knowledge.
krypt0nian
Banned
Silent Death said:
Sorry...still PWNED. :lol
Phoenix
Member
BigGreenMat said:
You missed a very important piece:
In order to follow this study you need a control where 100% of one sex has HIV in significant quantity (as they go on the discuss later) and 0% of the other has HIV.
So currently we're up from .1% (that you quoted) to 22% and we still don't have a control case yet.
But if you think you'll only get AIDs 22% of the time, knock yourself out.
BigGreenMat
Member
Phoenix said:
Um, what? I don't think you understood the statistics very well. You need no such control. If you wish you can simply split your statistics of each sex. They did that and stated they found no differences in transmission rates between the sexes once they adjusted for viral loads. Also you made absolutely no statement about viral loads in your 'unprotected sex with someone with HIV transmits the virus 80% of the time' claim. If you read and understood the study you would realize that you were WAY off and still aren't close to getting the correct idea. The 22% is a number of people who contracted the disease over a 4 year study period in which there was repeated sexual contact with condom usage between 5 and 16% within that period. Now if you think that the people had sex maybe 60 times in a year then that will give you a transmission chance of >.1%. I am sorry if you can't wrap your mind around that idea.
BigGreenMat
Member
LakeEarth said:
To be more exact they lack a co-receptor that the virus uses to bind to cells called CCR5 or chemokine receptor 5. HIV-1 generally requires this co-receptor in addition to CD4 to gain entry into the cell. People who lack this generally never encounter a viral strain which will infect them given limited contact such as sex.
The Myth of Heterosexual Aids is an excellent book by Michael Fumento, an attorney specializng in health. It essentially disassembles much of the hysteria surrounding AIDS, especially in Africa, where the exploding epidemic there has been largely attributed to unsafe sex by heterosexuals.
This isn't about any anti-homosexual bias on my part. I'm anything but a homophobe. I just think it needs to be said that there are a lot of misconceptions swirling about regarding non-anal heterosexual susceptibility to AIDs.
This isn't about any anti-homosexual bias on my part. I'm anything but a homophobe. I just think it needs to be said that there are a lot of misconceptions swirling about regarding non-anal heterosexual susceptibility to AIDs.
krypt0nian
Banned
Kano said:
Some crackpot writes a book on every controversial topic. Select another.
krypt0nian said:
But he's not a "crackpot," unless you consider someone who's been on every major circuit to be an an easily dismissable nutjob. Look, I don't understand why this is even up for debate. Look at the new transmission rate. There's no denying that homosexuals and intravenous drug users are at a greater risk for the contraction of the virus. If I recall correctly, a new study came out that said circumsized men in Africa saw their risk for infection reduced by about 70%.
krypt0nian
Banned
Kano said:
This goes up there with the scholars that wrote books "proving" that the holocaust never happened. You believe what you like, but I hope to hell you never practice these lunatic ideas.
Nor anyone else stupid enough to lay any weight behind your findings.
krypt0nian said:
Look, unless your penis is infested with sores, and you're inside a female with open sores around her vagina, the likelihood of you acquiring the virus is almost nil. Why do you dispute something that is accepted by experts who're anything BUT fringe?
It seems you're the one with the agenda, quite frankly. You would rather shift attention away from the group that is spreading the disease, instead preferring to draw everyone under the AIDS umbrella, as if there were some equivalency between homosexuals and heteros in this regard.
krypt0nian
Banned
Kano said:
here we go...the hate finally comes out. Dumbass, there is more than "equivalency" between homos and heteros. You just choose to ignore a fucking continent.
But you're quick to point out agendas huh? :lol
Fucking bigots.
Phoenix
Member
Mupepe said:Not nearly the end of the discussion. Have you ever listened to late night talk radio?? Those people can talk to aliens and most of them have been on primetime tv before! But shit... I wish I could talk to aliens:lol
True, just making the point that you can get complete nutjobs and "crackpots" in the circuit. Hell the circuit tends to be filled with them if for no other reasonn than to attract an audience to laugh at them.
krypt0nian
Banned
Kano said:
Totally off topic and a shallow comeback, bigot.
If "NOT heterosexual preponderance of AIDS transmissions" what is it?
Crazy land time huh?
BobbyRobby
Member
Its funny that it was never once mentioned to me in health class that women are more at risk than men from hetero sex.
Not that I would ever have unprotected sex, but I do believe there is an agenda to protect women by exaggerating what risk men are at.
Not that I would ever have unprotected sex, but I do believe there is an agenda to protect women by exaggerating what risk men are at.
krypt0nian said:
You mentioned a "continent," presumably Africa. I responded accordingly. You're the one that seemingly wishes to overlook the group that is most at risk. Anal sex, a staple of homosexual intimacy, is an inherently dangerous act. Not only are they at a greater risk for contracting AIDS, but anal sex results in a host of diseases finding their way into the system.
krypt0nian
Banned
Kano said:
You're clueless. Africa is fully on topic. You mentioning the health care system as if it had ANYTHING to do with tranmission rates is laughable.
The group that is most at risk at this point is definitely not homosexuals. Your great fear of anal sex nonwithstanding. :lol
Silent Death
lemme get one or two licks
Kano stand down dude. It's obvious that these people don't want to hear the truth. They just want to repeat tat same old fairy tale that they have been feed about AIDS being an equal opportunity disease that everyone has the same chance of getting, despite the cold hard facts showing the contrary. They want to use the spread of AIDS in Africa, through heterosexual sex as a boost to their flawed argument, that's why they refuse to acknowledge that the lack of modern health care and cultural disparities are the reasons why AIDS is spreading through Africa at an alarming rate
krypt0nian
Banned
Silent Death said:
Yes the perfect compliment to Kano. You should have anal sex later. :lol
Too late on the edit...I caught your nonsense in full bloom.
B-B-Bomba!
Member
But apparently it's great fun if done right ... What are you actually proposing? That AIDS research should cease because it doesn't affect your particular demographic? Or that we (the outward members of your demographic) should quit worrying about it, quit taking precautions against it, and quit giving money to the charitable or scientific bodies which fight it?
I don't like either argument, and I don't see a third.
krypt0nian
Banned
B-B-Bomba! said:
He's trying to talk his girlfriend into barebacking with him. Either that or SilentDeath. I'm not sure which.
Kano said:
Or you'll cry?
krypt0nian
Banned
temp said:
Please point out my mistakes. Do you think the rate of transmission is higher in homosexuals that in heterosexuals in the world? Cause they certainly do.
At this point I'm giving him the respect he's due.
B-B-Bomba!
Member
For what possible reason? Or - alright, if that is your only goal - is it really important enough to debate it so doggedly with people who've misunderstood your point, and think you're merely being a bigot? Unprotected, heterosexual, consensual, vaginal sex is still a dangerous game. Why waste words attempting to deflate the heterosexual communitys alarm over AIDS, when safe sex is a valid message in and of itself? Again, for what possible reason? Unless it's because you think more resources should be directed towards the African AIDS problem, in which case I'd probably agree ...Kano said:
CabbageRed
Member
temp said:
Let me guess. You're a bigot, right?
While he may not actually back up anything he says with links or make any real attempt debate/educate, he is hurling around insults like a champ.
Seriously , krypt0nian, I would love to hear you debate some of these points rather than freaking out on the posters who are making them.
BobbyRobby
Member
kano said:
This is all the man said. You know you can state a fact without having any underlying political agenda. It was you cynics who all jumped on him calling him a bigot.
Fact Sheet for this argument going forward...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Aegis Wrote:
HIV/AIDS WORLDWIDE
● As of the end of 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people worldwide -- 34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children younger than 15 years -- were living with HIV/AIDS. More than 70 percent of these people (25.3 million) live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 16 percent (5.8 million) live in South and Southeast Asia. (1)
● Worldwide, approximately one in every 100 adults aged 15 to 49 is HIV-infected. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 8.8 percent of all adults in this age group are HIV-infected. In 16 African countries, the prevalence of HIV infection among adults aged 15 to 49 exceeds 10 percent.(1,2)
● Approximately 47 percent of the 36.1 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are women.(1)
● An estimated 5.3 million new HIV infections occurred worldwide during 2000; that is, about 15,000 infections each day. More than 95 percent of these new infections occurred in developing countries.(1)
● In 2000, more than 6,500 young people aged 15 to 24 became infected with HIV every day -- that is, about five every minute.(1)
● Through 2000, cumulative HIV/AIDS-associated deaths worldwide numbered approximately 21.8 million -- 17.5 million adults and 4.3 million children younger than 15 years.(1)
● In 2000 alone, HIV/AIDS-associated illnesses caused the deaths of approximately 3 million people worldwide, including an estimated 500,000 children younger than 15 years.(1)
● An estimated 13.2 million children younger than age 15 had lost their mothers or both parents by the end of 1999.(2)
● Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse. (1,2)
● Mother-to-child (vertical) transmission has accounted for more than 90 percent of all HIV infections worldwide in infants and children.(1,2)
HIV/AIDS IN THE UNITED STATES
● The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 800,000 to 900,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-third of whom are unaware of their infection.(3)
● Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 1998, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.(4)
● Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)
● Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)
● In the United States, 733,374 cases of AIDS had been reported to the CDC as of Dec. 31, 1999.(5)
● The estimated number of new adult/adolescent AIDS cases diagnosed in the United States decreased 18 percent from 1996 to 1997 (from 60,618 cases to 49,704 cases). From 1997 to 1998, the number of new AIDS cases decreased 12 percent to 43,681 cases.(5)
● The estimated annual number of pediatric AIDS cases in the United States has fallen from 949 in 1992 to 228 in 1998.(5)
● From 1985 to 1999, the proportion of all U.S. AIDS cases which were reported in women increased from 7 percent to 23 percent.(5)
● The rate of new AIDS cases reported in the United States in 1999 (per 100,000 population) was 66.0 among blacks, 25.6 among Hispanics, 7.6 among whites, 8.8 among American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 3.4 among Asians/Pacific Islanders.(5)
● As of the end of 1998, an estimated 294,424 people in the United States were living with AIDS.(5)
● As of Dec. 31, 1999, 430,441 deaths among people with AIDS had been reported to the CDC.(5) AIDS is now the fifth leading cause of death in the United States among people aged 25 to 44, behind unintentional injuries, cancer, heart disease and suicide.(6)
● Approximately 37,739 AIDS-related deaths occurred in the United States in 1996. In 1997, the estimated number of AIDS-related deaths in the United States was 42 percent lower (21,850). In 1998, approximately 17,840 AIDS-related deaths occurred in the United States, a decline of 18 percent from 1997.(5)
● The rate of AIDS-related deaths reported in the United States in 1998 (per 100,000 population) was 32.5 among blacks, 12.2 among Hispanics, 3.3 among whites, 4.2 among American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 1.3 among Asians/Pacific Islanders.(4)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
As you can see pretty clearly, even in the US... a 60-40 chance of getting AIDS even if you're not a homosexual is PRETTY DAMN large. Even if you take out intrevenous use, 15 percent is a huge segment. That ain't exactly tiltin' vegas in your favour, hombre. Similarly, worldwide... it's not even a competition. Not while rejecting the worldview figures is arrogant/silly/pointless enough, it's really ridiculous this view that somehow heterosexuals are so much more significantly infalliable to this horrific thing.
This shouldn't be some faux-moral crusade against a specific lifestyle, or one mixed with heavily engrained ideologies and misguided judgments. This is about, whenever, the potential cure for AIDS down the road. And this is only a good thing, which even Kano admits.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Aegis Wrote:
HIV/AIDS WORLDWIDE
● As of the end of 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people worldwide -- 34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children younger than 15 years -- were living with HIV/AIDS. More than 70 percent of these people (25.3 million) live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 16 percent (5.8 million) live in South and Southeast Asia. (1)
● Worldwide, approximately one in every 100 adults aged 15 to 49 is HIV-infected. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 8.8 percent of all adults in this age group are HIV-infected. In 16 African countries, the prevalence of HIV infection among adults aged 15 to 49 exceeds 10 percent.(1,2)
● Approximately 47 percent of the 36.1 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are women.(1)
● An estimated 5.3 million new HIV infections occurred worldwide during 2000; that is, about 15,000 infections each day. More than 95 percent of these new infections occurred in developing countries.(1)
● In 2000, more than 6,500 young people aged 15 to 24 became infected with HIV every day -- that is, about five every minute.(1)
● Through 2000, cumulative HIV/AIDS-associated deaths worldwide numbered approximately 21.8 million -- 17.5 million adults and 4.3 million children younger than 15 years.(1)
● In 2000 alone, HIV/AIDS-associated illnesses caused the deaths of approximately 3 million people worldwide, including an estimated 500,000 children younger than 15 years.(1)
● An estimated 13.2 million children younger than age 15 had lost their mothers or both parents by the end of 1999.(2)
● Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse. (1,2)
● Mother-to-child (vertical) transmission has accounted for more than 90 percent of all HIV infections worldwide in infants and children.(1,2)
HIV/AIDS IN THE UNITED STATES
● The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 800,000 to 900,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-third of whom are unaware of their infection.(3)
● Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 1998, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.(4)
● Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)
● Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)
● In the United States, 733,374 cases of AIDS had been reported to the CDC as of Dec. 31, 1999.(5)
● The estimated number of new adult/adolescent AIDS cases diagnosed in the United States decreased 18 percent from 1996 to 1997 (from 60,618 cases to 49,704 cases). From 1997 to 1998, the number of new AIDS cases decreased 12 percent to 43,681 cases.(5)
● The estimated annual number of pediatric AIDS cases in the United States has fallen from 949 in 1992 to 228 in 1998.(5)
● From 1985 to 1999, the proportion of all U.S. AIDS cases which were reported in women increased from 7 percent to 23 percent.(5)
● The rate of new AIDS cases reported in the United States in 1999 (per 100,000 population) was 66.0 among blacks, 25.6 among Hispanics, 7.6 among whites, 8.8 among American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 3.4 among Asians/Pacific Islanders.(5)
● As of the end of 1998, an estimated 294,424 people in the United States were living with AIDS.(5)
● As of Dec. 31, 1999, 430,441 deaths among people with AIDS had been reported to the CDC.(5) AIDS is now the fifth leading cause of death in the United States among people aged 25 to 44, behind unintentional injuries, cancer, heart disease and suicide.(6)
● Approximately 37,739 AIDS-related deaths occurred in the United States in 1996. In 1997, the estimated number of AIDS-related deaths in the United States was 42 percent lower (21,850). In 1998, approximately 17,840 AIDS-related deaths occurred in the United States, a decline of 18 percent from 1997.(5)
● The rate of AIDS-related deaths reported in the United States in 1998 (per 100,000 population) was 32.5 among blacks, 12.2 among Hispanics, 3.3 among whites, 4.2 among American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 1.3 among Asians/Pacific Islanders.(4)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
As you can see pretty clearly, even in the US... a 60-40 chance of getting AIDS even if you're not a homosexual is PRETTY DAMN large. Even if you take out intrevenous use, 15 percent is a huge segment. That ain't exactly tiltin' vegas in your favour, hombre. Similarly, worldwide... it's not even a competition. Not while rejecting the worldview figures is arrogant/silly/pointless enough, it's really ridiculous this view that somehow heterosexuals are so much more significantly infalliable to this horrific thing.
This shouldn't be some faux-moral crusade against a specific lifestyle, or one mixed with heavily engrained ideologies and misguided judgments. This is about, whenever, the potential cure for AIDS down the road. And this is only a good thing, which even Kano admits.
CabbageRed
Member
Amir0x said:
Maybe I missed one of Kano's comments that warranted the "even," but in the end, both political/moral sides of this issue need to back off and let science take over. This is a humanitarian issue and one that should not be clouded by those who bend the facts to fit a private crusade or those who obscure facts to frighten everyone so that they rally behind the pursuit of a cure.
CabbageRed said:
Saying "If you're heterosexual you don't even need to really worry about AIDS" is what elicited the EVEN, which is definitely warranted for such absurd commentary. We're a bit passed that now, though, so no reason to focus on why a word was used.
Anyhow, nothing to do with obscure facts. These are the facts, period, and they disprove/prove a lot of what has been said in this thread... and it's a good thing they're here.
This IS a humanitarian issue, but it's also about the pursuit of a cure... and how that is, everyone admits, only a good thing.
CabbageRed
Member
Amir0x said:
I missed his generalization entirely. Agreed.
Amir0x said:
I meant "who obscure facts" to convey those who hide the disparity between hetero and homosexual mails when it comes to contracting HIV/AIDS. I don't know if you ever brought up these figures with someone saying that everyone is at equal risk but if you do, you can easily end up with a widely defensive and insulting person on your hands.
You would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes more strongly than myself in human rights when it comes to homosexuals. However, I have been called all manner of things for trying to start a discussion when it comes to the HIV/AIDS disparity.
You have the bigots and the politically correct on either and both are ready to chew your face off over this issue. That is way I was making the point at all. This needs to remain a scientific/humanitarian issue and nothing more.
Amir0x said:
And we, of course, agree.
I thought the widespread use of dirty needles in hospitals was one of the main factors in the initial sprading of the epidemy in Africa. At least, that's what was told me the last time I spoke about it with someone that took an interest in it. Should look it up, since it contradicts some quotes in this thread.
Amakusa
Member
Don't you people know that aids was created in a US lab down in Africa. They used it on the people killing off far more then Thousands, no one really knows the number.. and yes a U.S LAB. One they created AIDs, they made a cure long long ago. Only highly rich people are allowed the cure right now, good old Magic Johnson doesn't have AIDs anymore, the news doesn't even talk about him. It's like he never got it to begin with.
Amir0x said:
The facts above counter nothing I've said. It's a fact that many homosexuals are also in heterosexual relationships, meaning they're bringing their unsafe practice of anal sex back to their female partners. It's also a fact that women are far more susceptible to contracting the disease than men -- almost 80% compared to 7% risk in men. If you're not a homosexual, you're right, the chance of "getting AIDS" is "PRETTY DAMN large" if you're a woman involved with a man who is committing infidelity with men or partaking of intravenous drug use.
You all are making this into a "heterosexual" vs. "homosexual" argument -- when it is anything but. It's a matter of placing things into their proper perspective. We need to target and assist those groups who are at a greater risk of contraction, intervening where we may stem the spread of this disease.
By overstating the disease's threat to the heterosexual community, you're thinning resources that could be better spent combating the true causes.
FortNinety
Member
I can't believe some of the shit I'm reading, I mean seriously. Whenever I see a bus or train ad for AIDS awareness, I think to myself, do they really need this? Doesn't everyone already know how potentially lethal it is? Isn't that a given with all the facts that are readily available? This thread proves me wrong.
Excuse me, I just realized that I touched a bathroom doornob without washing my hands afterwards. I might have teh AIDS.
Excuse me, I just realized that I touched a bathroom doornob without washing my hands afterwards. I might have teh AIDS.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
If the information from CDC here is correct, if you are a male living in North America, and engage in unprotected heterosexual sex, the chances of getting AIDS seem pretty damn low. Only 5000 something people a year. If you are a female it's ~8000 a year. On the other hand, I've heard that in US, every year around 50000 people die from flu.
So from the point of someone living in NA and not caring about the rest of the world, I can see, I guess, how someone wouldn't care much about the aids or the cure for it :\ Not to mention people who only engage in protected sex. AIDS really is easily preventable if you live in civilized world and have have some basic knowledge. I doubt that anyone living here, even fully knowledgeable about it, actually worries about ever contracting it.
So from the point of someone living in NA and not caring about the rest of the world, I can see, I guess, how someone wouldn't care much about the aids or the cure for it :\ Not to mention people who only engage in protected sex. AIDS really is easily preventable if you live in civilized world and have have some basic knowledge. I doubt that anyone living here, even fully knowledgeable about it, actually worries about ever contracting it.
- Status