AIDS, HIV and STDs

Cancer, Diabetes, Osteoporosis etc.
Post Reply
Kookaburra
Posts: 293
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28

AIDS, HIV and STDs

Post by Kookaburra »

I've been thinking, being on the Wai Diet, can I still get sexually transmitted diseases if I have sex without condoms with different partners?

On the Wai Diet, you are training your immune system to deal with bacteria like salmonella by eating raw egg yolks and salmon everyday. So, our immune system should be pretty strong right? I think so as I haven't gotten a cold or flu since being on the diet.

Both the cold and STDs have something in common - they are both caused by viruses. The fact that I haven't gotten a cold proves that the virus is destroyed by my strong immunity system. So, if my immunity system can deal with the cold virus, I am sure it can deal with the STDs' virus and bacteria, no?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: AIDS, HIV and STDs

Post by RRM »

Kookaburra wrote:being on the Wai Diet, can I still get sexually transmitted diseases if I have sex without condoms with different partners?
Absolutely.
And it just takes one infected sexual partner.
I haven't gotten a cold or flu since being on the diet.
You will still get in contact with viruses, which will still enter your blood.
How serious their effects will be depends on the state of your defense.
And your defense will also temporarily be less strong when you lack sleep
(or have to cope with too much stress), for example.
So, you you can still get the flu, as there are more factors involved.
So, if my immunity system can deal with the cold virus, I am sure it can deal with the STDs' virus and bacteria, no?
Not necessarily so, as different viruses are really different.
Mild effects of another virus may be way more severe than mild effects of the flu.
And there is the problem of still transmitting STDs to other people once you are infected.
Kookaburra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28

Post by Kookaburra »

Hmm don't you find it interesting that AIDs originated in the late 19th or early 20th century? That is very short in terms of of the evolution scale. Why were there no AIDs back then in the homo erectus and Neanderthal days?

Think about it. The very first human beings are virgins. They are totally pure. There are no STDs. So, its very interesting that generations later, so many people have STDs. How did the virus originate? Yes, you get it through an infected person, but how did that infected person get it? Eventually, you find yourself asking, how did the very first infected person get it?

There are so many obese people nowadays, but there aren't any back in the Neanderthal ages. This is because of cooked food and its appetite enhancer properties. I think its mentioned in the free acne book.

If we can find out why there are so many obese people now compared to the past, I am sure we can find out why there is AIDs now. I mean, it has been in existence for about 100+ years only! That is very very short! I know this might sound crazy, but maybe cooked food cause AIDs? If it can cause cancer, vascular diseases etc as mentioned on waisays, I don't think its totally wrong to suggest that it might cause AIDs too, although I don't know how.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Kookaburra wrote:Why were there no AIDs back then in the homo erectus and Neanderthal days?
The more densely populated, the more diseases will arise.
Thats how overpopulation naturally is reversed.
Eventually, you find yourself asking, how did the very first infected person get it?
All viruses mutate.
An innocent virus may eventually mutate into a deadly disease.
And the more people are around, the greater the chances that the virus may spread before the carrier of the disease is dead.
There are so many obese people nowadays, but there aren't any back in the Neanderthal ages.
Probably not.
Its probably because we had to walk all day to get enough food.
The more food we wanted to eat, the more we had to walk (and / or climb)
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Less consumption of addictive and appetite-enhancing substances probably also played a role.
Kookaburra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28

Post by Kookaburra »

RRM wrote:
Kookaburra wrote:Why were there no AIDs back then in the homo erectus and Neanderthal days?
The more densely populated, the more diseases will arise.
Thats how overpopulation naturally is reversed.
Overpopulation can be reversed naturally? How is that done?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

RRM wrote:
Kookaburra wrote: The more densely populated, the more diseases will arise.
Thats how overpopulation naturally is reversed.
Overpopulation can be reversed naturally? How is that done?
By diseases.
"The more densely populated, the more diseases will arise."
Thats also why intensive farming/breading has its limits;
the more hens you stack in one place,
the more diseases will arise, particularly those involving viruses,
as the more densely populated, the greater the risks of contamination.
So, logically, we will increasingly have to encounter diseases such as AIDS, bird flu, pig flu and so on,
which will diminish as there will be less survivors.
(apologies for this not-so-optimistic view)
Kookaburra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28

Post by Kookaburra »

So, logically, we will increasingly have to encounter diseases such as AIDS, bird flu, pig flu and so on,
which will diminish as there will be less survivors.
(apologies for this not-so-optimistic view)
I am a bit confused about the last sentence. You are saying that AIDS, bird flu, pig flu and so on, will diminish due to less survivors? How is that possible? The number of people who have AIDS are increasing each year, instead of diminishing.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

He means it's correlated to the number of humans in densely populated areas, which is increasing too.

While I agree to that theory, I'm not convinced that is the case with the aforementioned diseases (and other ones like them). It is far from sure that the cause of those diseases has nothing to do with factors like for instance diet. Cases have been made which argue causes ranging from pollution to man-made biological weapons. I'm not saying any of this is true, but there is reasonable doubt. Another cause is monetary gain. An example of this is the latest scare, the Mexican flu.
panacea
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Post by panacea »

the correlation between disease and overpopulation by RRM has to be taken in the correct definition of 'overpopulation'. Which means the population is causing problems (not enough optimal resources, or requires toxic waste accumulation to support said overpopulation before nature can deal with it) which causes environmental factors such as, inherited bad diet, pollution, and all that comes with 'sharing' the earth when there isn't enough for optimal per person. In this definition then yes nature punishes abuse of space and resources (like the chickens huddled together without technology to keep the minimized space 100% optimal and efficient or more efficient than in nature.. like you would see in a space age movie spaceship..) Think of hydroponics for example, you still have an opportunity cost (loss of phytonutrients), but with technology someday those losses may be gained, and hydroponics will be a higher quality and quantity way than the way nature has provided. Nature is always best but sometimes it creates animals that 'enhance' it faster, or not. Like us, humans, who mostly hurt the quality of things like a virus ourself, or beavers, who one could argue build a more efficient water-way than erosion/rivers do.
User avatar
Mr. PC
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun 25 Jan 2009 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: AIDS, HIV and STDs

Post by Mr. PC »

What do people thing about the AIDS conspiracy theories? Has anyone heard of them? BTW spermicidal condoms increase the cheaces of STIs long term, because they create tiny cuts on your glands. It's better to use non-spermicidal.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: AIDS, HIV and STDs

Post by RRM »

Have heard of them, but for me its impossible to tell whats true.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: AIDS, HIV and STDs

Post by Oscar »

Well, for instance, I'm still not convinced that:
1. it's a specific systematic disease/disorder
2. the HIV virus causes 'it'
3. anti-AIDS drugs are helpful and harmless
User avatar
Mr. PC
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun 25 Jan 2009 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: AIDS, HIV and STDs

Post by Mr. PC »

Does anyone have any links they consider credible? I've searched google of course but I have a hard time determining what's valid.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: AIDS, HIV and STDs

Post by Oscar »

I haven't been looking into it for a while, so no idea.
Post Reply