Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 151 posts

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#91

Post by aasarava »

decasteve wrote: post #24

Soon after they identified the 4H's of HIV/AIDS: homosexuals, haemophiliacs, heroin addicts, and Haitians.

Haitians in the US were discriminated against on the belief that they were bringing AIDS into the country. But medical anthropologist Paul Farmer has done a good job of showing that Haitians were only more "susceptible" to the virus than other populations because American sex tourists often visited Haiti and inadvertently spread the disease to Haitian sex workers.

http://www.amazon.com/AIDS-Accusation-Haiti-Geography-Blame/...

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#92

Post by peterjancelis »

jaxytee wrote: post #83
newnewnew wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really going to blow your mind is the statistics on who gets HIV infections in the United States today: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html What an un-PC virus. Doesn't it know we're living in 2013? I'm told reality is supposed to have a liberal bias now.

It actually didn't suprise me at all that oppressed groups have the highest incident of HIV infection.

Are you saying people are being oppressed into having unprotected sex?

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#93

Post by loup-vaillant »

mhurron wrote: post #67
bruceb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Major Dan was getting it on with prostitutes but he doesn't get aids. It also showed the anti war guy just happens to be a women beater...

Are you saying anti-war protesters can't be women beaters? That liberated women can't get AIDS? That in the late 70's prostitutes were guaranteed ways of getting this disease that wasn't widespread yet? Forrest Gump had very real characters. Jenny had a shitty life, which continued to be shitty by her choices. This really happens to people from shitty backgrounds because they don't recognize shitty situations as shit…

Propaganda or no, our brains do have a tendency to mix up correlation and causation (most notably because many times, correlation does come from causation), and a tendency to draw conclusions from fiction as well as from reality.

Someone who notices both her AIDS and her left-wing behaviour will likely be a tiny bit more confident that one causes the other.

(Now, I do see her as a prisoner of her shitty situation, and not as a "liberated" woman.)

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#95

Post by vilhelm_s »

aasarava wrote: post #91
decasteve wrote: post #24

Soon after they identified the 4H's of HIV/AIDS: homosexuals, haemophiliacs, heroin addicts, and Haitians.

Haitians in the US were discriminated against on the belief that they were bringing AIDS into the country. But medical anthropologist Paul Farmer has done a good job of showing that Haitians were only more "susceptible" to the virus than other populations because American sex tourists often visited Haiti and inadvertently spread the disease to Haitian sex workers. http://www.amazon.com/AIDS-Accusation-Haiti-Geography…

As I understood it, there was a long standing debate about whether the AIDS epidemic spread from Haiti to the US or the other way around, but genetic evidence eventually found that it did come from Haiti: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18566.long

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#96

Post by maerF0x0 »

peterjancelis wrote: post #92
jaxytee wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually didn't suprise me at all that oppressed groups have the highest incident of HIV infection.

Are you saying people are being oppressed into having unprotected sex?

or that they receive fewer opportunities for education and distribution of said protection (eg, a richer school may have free condom distribution, but a poorer one does not?). Maybe because cultures of "Abstinence" (eg, teach them abstinence and dont give them condoms/protection, then wonder why they get diseases)...

This is all supposition, I'll let others lay down the facts.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#97

Post by bencollier49 »

GhotiFish wrote: post #39
run4yourlives wrote: post #7

An article like this makes you wonder how many different diseases (answer - over 200) get lumped together under the large "cancer" umbrella. One wonders if we are doing ourselves a disservice maintaining a term more inline with shared symptoms instead of separating the diseases into shared causes. At any rate I'm digressing, but cancer is a fascinating (while horrible) concept that exists in our reality. When you thi…

I always though cancer was an umbrella term for when a cell mutates in such a fashion to lose it's reproductive throttle, and consequently starts consuming as many resources as possible, eventually fragmenting and spreading throughout the body. What kind of cancers don't fit this definition?

Oh, they all fit this definition, but the mutation isn't always spontaneous.

For example, cervical cancer is often caused by HPV, which is why school-age girls are routinely immunised against it in the UK.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#98

Post by dkrich »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #75
scrumper wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, thanks. Got another example I can swap it for? Haven't seen the film in at least a decade.

He was named about his relative named Forrest, who was part of a group that wore bed sheets and rode around on horses that also wore bed sheets. - KKK reference. Forrest was at the U. of Ark. during the time of integration, and picked up the book dropped by one of the Little Rock 9. He coined the term 'Shit Happens' and the smiley face t-shirt.

He was at the University of Alabama, not Arkansas. George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama is blocking the entrance in a famous scene in American history known as "The Stand in the Schoolhouse Door." [1]

My dad was a professor at the University of Georgia during this time and still talks about what it was like being in the south at that time. Really fascinating to hear him describe it. He actually drove through Arkansas on a university research field trip right when desegregation was beginning to be enforced and saw the National Guard in place to enforce it.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#99

Post by eshvk »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #93
mhurron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying anti-war protesters can't be women beaters? That liberated women can't get AIDS? That in the late 70's prostitutes were guaranteed ways of getting this disease that wasn't widespread yet? Forrest Gump had very real characters. Jenny had a shitty life, which continued to be shitty by her choices. This really happens to people from shitty backgrounds because they don't recognize shitty situations as shit…

Propaganda or no, our brains do have a tendency to mix up correlation and causation (most notably because many times, correlation does come from causation), and a tendency to draw conclusions from fiction as well as from reality. Someone who notices both her AIDS and her left-wing behaviour will likely be a tiny bit more confident that one causes the other. (Now, I do see her as a prisoner of her shitty situation, an…

> Someone who notices both her AIDS and her left-wing behaviour will likely be a tiny bit more confident that one causes the other.

So just because some people are woolly headed, artistic endeavours should show only one-dimensional characters? Reality is filled with Syrian rebels who eat hearts, rapists who were nice to their mothers and computer programmers who pray to god.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#100

Post by andrewcooke »

newnewnew wrote: post #79
bruceb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was pretty obvious. Was also a tad annoying as because she was liberal and anti war and was a sexually liberated woman...well then she is a whore that will get her payback by being given aids. I thought it was a good movie but it had touches of right-wing propaganda.

What's really going to blow your mind is the statistics on who gets HIV infections in the United States today: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html What an un-PC virus. Doesn't it know we're living in 2013? I'm told reality is supposed to have a liberal bias now.

i don't understand. heterosexual women are way down the list. what are you trying to say? (i haven't seen the film so perhaps i am missing something, but i thought the argument from the original comment was that being a sexually active woman wasn't a major risk factor).
Post reply on HN