As he left on a trip to Africa, a continent besieged by AIDS, Pope Benedict XVI drew the wrath of liberals by declaring that the distribution of condoms did nothing to stop the spread of AIDS but, instead, were part of the problem. He recommended abstinence as the only certain protection against the disease.
Mentioning the word "abstinence" in the presence of the liberal press is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. They immediately attacked what they viewed as the Pope's ignorance of the subject and cited the World Health Organization's claim that "consistent and correct" use of condoms reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 percent.
That is a blatant lie.
Being an innately curious person, when AIDS first appeared on the national scene, I avidly read all the material I could find on that deadly disease.
I discovered that the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, is what's known as a "retrovirus". That means it's much smaller in size than the viruses we were used to dealing with.
In fact, according to scientists, the virus is so small that it is able to slip between the molecules of a latex condom. The HIV virus is one-tenth of a micron in diameter. The pores between the molecules in a latex condom are five microns in diameter. You do the math. Condoms provide no protection whatsoever against AIDS!
This fact was made public at the outset of the epidemic but then was effectively squelched by those who find the advocacy of abstinence offensive, unsophisticated, and an excuse to push the moral values of the religious right on the rest of the country
The truth did not serve the political agenda of the left, and so the truth was buried and a lie was deliberately promoted.
Several years later, a government-sponsored poll was taken to determine the degree of AIDS awareness of American households. I was one of the people they polled.
When the young man asked me if I thought AIDS could be prevented by the proper use of condoms, I answered in the negative. Since I had thus far exhibited an acceptable level of awareness of the disease, my answer elicited surprise from the young pollster.
"You don't think so?" he asked, to be sure we'd understood each other.
I went on to explain to him what I'd read about the size of the AIDS virus with relation to the latex molecules of a condom. He told me he'd never heard that before and duly noted my response on his sheet.
If we know that condoms provide no protection whatsoever against contracting AIDS, aren't we doing the gay community a great disservice by leading them to believe they can avoid infection if they engage in "safe" sex?
And take a look at what's happening in Africa. For decades, millions of condoms have been distributed in a misguided effort to stem the spread of the deadly AIDS epidemic on that continent. Despite those efforts, the epidemic has grown worse. Perhaps the truth would have served better.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is estimated that 26.6 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS. Approximately 3.2 million new infections occurred in 2003. In that year alone, the AIDS epidemic claimed the lives of an estimated 2.3 million Africans. Infection is also increasing at an alarming rate in Asia and Russia.
In view of this pandemic, why do gay rights advocates, who purportedly want to protect and defend the rights of the gay community, cry foul whenever anyone declares abstinence to be the only sure way to avoid contracting this deadly disease? Why do they continue to advocate such a dangerous lifestyle? More importantly, why do these so-called "advocates" continue to perpetuate a myth?
A political agenda cannot possibly be more important than the truth, more important than lives… can it?
Mentioning the word "abstinence" in the presence of the liberal press is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. They immediately attacked what they viewed as the Pope's ignorance of the subject and cited the World Health Organization's claim that "consistent and correct" use of condoms reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 percent.
That is a blatant lie.
Being an innately curious person, when AIDS first appeared on the national scene, I avidly read all the material I could find on that deadly disease.
I discovered that the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, is what's known as a "retrovirus". That means it's much smaller in size than the viruses we were used to dealing with.
In fact, according to scientists, the virus is so small that it is able to slip between the molecules of a latex condom. The HIV virus is one-tenth of a micron in diameter. The pores between the molecules in a latex condom are five microns in diameter. You do the math. Condoms provide no protection whatsoever against AIDS!
This fact was made public at the outset of the epidemic but then was effectively squelched by those who find the advocacy of abstinence offensive, unsophisticated, and an excuse to push the moral values of the religious right on the rest of the country
The truth did not serve the political agenda of the left, and so the truth was buried and a lie was deliberately promoted.
Several years later, a government-sponsored poll was taken to determine the degree of AIDS awareness of American households. I was one of the people they polled.
When the young man asked me if I thought AIDS could be prevented by the proper use of condoms, I answered in the negative. Since I had thus far exhibited an acceptable level of awareness of the disease, my answer elicited surprise from the young pollster.
"You don't think so?" he asked, to be sure we'd understood each other.
I went on to explain to him what I'd read about the size of the AIDS virus with relation to the latex molecules of a condom. He told me he'd never heard that before and duly noted my response on his sheet.
If we know that condoms provide no protection whatsoever against contracting AIDS, aren't we doing the gay community a great disservice by leading them to believe they can avoid infection if they engage in "safe" sex?
And take a look at what's happening in Africa. For decades, millions of condoms have been distributed in a misguided effort to stem the spread of the deadly AIDS epidemic on that continent. Despite those efforts, the epidemic has grown worse. Perhaps the truth would have served better.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is estimated that 26.6 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS. Approximately 3.2 million new infections occurred in 2003. In that year alone, the AIDS epidemic claimed the lives of an estimated 2.3 million Africans. Infection is also increasing at an alarming rate in Asia and Russia.
In view of this pandemic, why do gay rights advocates, who purportedly want to protect and defend the rights of the gay community, cry foul whenever anyone declares abstinence to be the only sure way to avoid contracting this deadly disease? Why do they continue to advocate such a dangerous lifestyle? More importantly, why do these so-called "advocates" continue to perpetuate a myth?
A political agenda cannot possibly be more important than the truth, more important than lives… can it?
© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment