>transmission almost exclusively among gay males through sexual contact
>virus appears to have undergone extremely rapid evolution over the past couple years
>pox lesions are almost exclusively forming in the urogenital area
Are we witnessing the evolution of a new form of STI? Somehow monkeypox, a normally classically spread virus, appears to be evolving into an exclusively sexually transmitted disease.
How long until we talk about getting monkeypox as being on the same level as contracting herpes, or HIV? Remember viruses will evolve to maximize their main route of transmission, so if the pox is spread exclusively through sex, it will evolve to get better at spreading through sex.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Related
>https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/monkeypox-symptoms-differ-previous-outbreaks-uk-study-2022-07-01/
>Patients reported less fever and tiredness and more skin lesions in their genital and anal areas than typically seen in monkeypox, the study of 54 patients at London sexual health clinics in May this year found.
>Somehow monkeypox, a normally classically spread virus, appears to be evolving into an exclusively sexually transmitted disease.
It's primarily spread through contact with infected animals (namely monkeys). At least when talking about the African varieties.
>a country threatens to go biowarfare
>unusual virus appears out of nowhere
How does this doesn't look suspicious?
>i tell peepaw that i want to go to mars someday
>space X announces their new mars initiative
How does this doesn't look suspicious?
or maybe coincidental events can happen and youre a fricking moron who should be euthanized out of sheer mercy?
ADE from Coronavirus COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been long expected to bring weird viral symptoms to light.
>inb4 dengue
once again gays prove to be horrible disease vectors.
When will we begin to realize that homosexuals 100% have an STI transmission problem?
Enough with the antisemitism.
Promiscuous homosexuals in religious states, in the USA, have most of the problem. They also have the highest STI's overall.
Funny, though, nobody ever makes threads about the religion problem. Almost like there's a transparent agenda.
>Promiscuous homosexuals in religious states
they are the worst kind because they are closeted. they get gay cancer and then spread to women.
>t. has an agenda
NY and California are hardest hit right now.
Not exactly religious states.
Nice pivot jackass. Here's what I wrote since you're allergic to honesty,
>Promiscuous homosexuals in religious states, in the USA, have most of the problem. They also have the highest STI's overall.
And here's what that is in reply to,
>When will we begin to realize that homosexuals 100% have an STI transmission problem?
So what exactly does saying "Buht currently monkeypox isn't in the religious states" do? You think the same people in religious states having all the STI's due to religion also get STI testing? Funny how caveats disappear the moment you dipshits think something "goes your way".
>Promiscuous homosexuals in religious states, in the USA, have most of the problem. They also have the highest STI's overall.
>Funny, though, nobody ever makes threads about the religion problem
There isn't a religion problem. The issue is that homosexuals who were religious strive to do everything against their previous religious out of spite, much like atheists from Catholic countries become iber degenerates.
Wait till you meet an ex-Mormon. Talk about wanting to make up for lost time.
I love ex-Mormon bawds
>There isn't a religion problem. The issue is that homosexuals who were religious strive to do everything against their previous religious out of spite, much like atheists from Catholic countries become iber degenerates.
RRriiiight, that's totally why the areas with the most religiosity and most homophobia, and unsurprisingly least same-sex marriage rates, have the most STI's among homosexuals. It has nothing at all to do with the bigotry, the stupidity, of your religion at all. Totally.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1557988315590835
Oh no wait it's like I said it's your religion causing people to self-hate and refuse making long term monogamous attachments. The more homophobic the bible thumping the worse the effect. "No shit sherlock" - except you dipshits are so desperate to save your crumbling mythos you have to lie out your ass at every opportunity.
Ah yes, Jesus made you stick penises up your bum.
If it wasn't for religion and it's offshoots (ie, humanism) there is ZERO reason to keep homosexuals around. They're defective and orientate their life around an utterly unproductive and friviolous activity that is of no benefit to themselves or the species at large. A true unspooked scientific society would wholesale euthanize them. Back in the caveman days, they were brained. The only reason nobody does anything about them is because of the pervasive and unscientific idea of a soul, and so called rights privileges and immunities stemming from it. Homosexuals owe their existence and protections to religion. If it was truly done away with and we were strict scientific materialists, then it follows there is no reason why the state should not liquidate them. I've made this argument before and I'll I got was seething in response from both religious brained morons and gays.
Yup, and in 100 or so years when 80% of the worlds population is gay and we're on the brink of extinction people will wonder why nobody mentioned it before.
>If it wasn't for religion and it's offshoots (ie, humanism) there is ZERO reason to keep homosexuals around.
On the contrary, having extra males who don't compete for mates seems like a pretty fricking valuable asset to heterosexual men, evolutionarily speaking.
>They're defective and orientate their life around an utterly unproductive and friviolous activity that is of no benefit to themselves or the species at large.
https://www.diverseeducation.com/demographics/lgbtq/article/15281777/gay-men-have-the-highest-rates-of-degree-attainment-in-us-study-finds
to MIttleman, 52% of gay men in the U.S. have a bachelor's degree, a total of 16 percentage points higher than the national average.
Wrong on that one too.
>A true unspooked scientific society would wholesale euthanize them
Oh sure and harvesting random organs for the benefit of people needing them totally makes people feel safe and secure in society. That's totally reasonable. Yawn.
Exclusive homosexuality is rare. If the average homosexual has 500+ sexual partners, the capability to sleep with a woman is there and many women with gay friends are sleeping with them. There is also no reason to not want to propagate it either so naturally they'll try to spread it to heterosexual teenagers and young adults.
>muh degree
Useless criteria. Bachelor degree is not a sign of intelligence. Obviously a homosexual would be incentived to go to a safe space where there are plenty of other homosexuals and also reep the benefit of a protected status and be eligible for favorable positive discrimination in scholarships and tuition so completion is all but assured. Meanwhile they're studying worthless material like humanities and the liberal arts. Regardless, muh degree means value is post hoc nonsense that doesn't negate my point at all.
>Useless criteria. Bachelor degree is not a sign of intelligence
From the same source,
, the study found that 6% of gay men in the U.S. have an advanced degree (J.D., M.D. or Ph.D.), which is 50% higher than the number of straight men with degrees and, notably, is a trend that remained true across the four largest racial/ethnic groups (white, Black, Hispanic and Asian).
>There is also no reason to not want to propagate it either so naturally they'll try to spread it to heterosexual teenagers and young adults.
You're either trolling or colossally moronic. Either way you're lost because IQfy isn't /misc/.
I lost nothing. I simply pointed out that homosexuality is a maldaptive and useless trait and its elimination from society is a net benefit and if it wasn't for religious thinking, homosexuals would have been removed long ago. You're seething with tagents and post hoc arguments to justify your existence. These esteemed degreed people aren't doing anything great. Why would I care about excelling in any of those occupations when my greatest goal would be to sodomize an anus? The career simply would be just an act to pay the bills and keep the lights on. If you consider positive discrimination and the socioeconomic status of homosexuals to begin with (themselves coming from rich urbanites families usually), its no wonder why they would easily excel in these areas. Meanwhile straight white people like Christopher Lagan whose car broke down when he was in college wasn't helped at all and went to squander his existence as a bouncer and internet meme writer.
>You're seething with tagents and post hoc arguments
Core refutations to your schizophasia posting, yes. /misc/ is that way
They aren't refutations. The presence of a BA or JD proves and justifies nothing. Homosexuality is an undesirable aberration.
>Homosexuality is an undesirable aberration.
Your stupidity is the undesirable aberration. So by your reasoning we're justified removing you. QED
You're the one who lacks a cogent argument and whose posts up to and including this one are fallacious. So far your reaction has been pretty moralbrained like an offended religious person and rather than offer any response it's been name calling, ad hominem, or strawman. The value of certain degrees is dubious, homosexuals presence in academia is better explained to an external rather than intrinsic attributes, when this has been exhausted you've offered nothing but muh /misc/, muh schizo, and muh stupid. You're not smart.
>You're the one who lacks a cogent argument and whose posts up to and including this one are fallacious
Yet you cannot name nor explain the fallacy. Your argument is self defeating, as it justifies removing yourself by the same arbitrary standards you assert.
The illogicality of your posts was spelled out in the one you just replied to.
>On the contrary, having extra males who don't compete for mates seems like a pretty fricking valuable asset to heterosexual men, evolutionarily speaking.
So we should exterminate all lesbians?
I've found lesbians to be the most trouble causing of any group and generally are extremely obese. Their presence in society would undermine social stability.
>On the contrary, having extra males who don't compete for mates seems like a pretty fricking valuable asset to heterosexual men, evolutionarily
Bullshit and you know it. Not enough homosexuals to make a choice difference but more than enough to spread STD'd with their promiscuity rates.
>According to MIttleman, 52% of gay men in the U.S. have a bachelor's degree, a total of 16 percentage points higher than the national average.
Homosexuals are also over-represented in the Arts and music. It isn't because they are smarter, its simply because the risks they take to meet their promiscuous sexual urges extend to other areas as well.
There are countless straight bright men who spend more time raising and caring for a loving family than going to school.
And in either case, having a disproportionate number of degrees in no way atones for the billions who have suffered through their promiscuity and disease spreading.
>A true unspooked scientific society would wholesale euthanize them
I do agree with yout answer on this one, that euthanization is extreme. But honestly so is worshiping them and devoting pride months to what are essentially disease vectors.
>Not enough homosexuals to make a choice difference but more than enough to spread STD'd with their promiscuity rates.
This is a religious bigotry problem, not a "male problem". The largest sample ever done on surveying homosexuals was the now-defunct OKCupid survey, link provided. Gay men are just men, it's other factors that cause the problems. Clearly, as shown in the USA, that major factor is religion.
>And in either case, having a disproportionate number of degrees in no way atones for the billions who have suffered through their promiscuity and disease spreading.
So by your logic we should eliminate religion because a disproportionate amount of charity no way atones for the billions who have suffered from its bigotry. Fair is fair I suppose, time to ban religion.
You don't have an argument you just have verbal diarrhea.
>link provided.
Correction: Image provided. Derp.
Bugchaser detected.
Let me mark up your annotation a bit here:
>This is a religious bigotry problem, not a "male problem
You have no source for this statement other than a graph that flies in direct contradiction to this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334840/
If you even bothered to read https://archive.amarna-forum.net/salo/salo/003167_patient-zero-and-the-early-days-of-hiv-aids_p001_o.html, you would get a n idea of exactly how promiscuous homosexual males are.
And nothing has changed, Monkeypox spread like wildfire directly because of the the high risk sexual promiscuity of male homosexuals. FACT
I'm not religious to any extent but will concede that and any religious bigotry that does exist is likely for cause.
>So by your logic we should eliminate religion because a disproportionate amount of charity n
This statement is puerile drivel. Christianity is actually very supportive of homosexuals, (much more so than say Islam.) See https://www.qchristian.org/resources/theology for a sample of what I mean. To blanket all religions as being inline for elimination is fascism in the extreme - even if it were a feeble attempt at sarcasm.
>You have no source for this statement other than a graph that flies in direct contradiction to this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334840/
Probably because it was the single largest and most comprehensive survey ever done. Like I said. Also, it isn't from the 90s where discrimination mirrored what we see in religious southern states.
The promiscuity trend keeps going down the less religious bible thumping people are subjected to. Equally "mysteriously" the states with the worst issue are the most religious ones. Gee I wonder what the issue was!
>And nothing has changed, Monkeypox spread like wildfire directly because of the the high risk sexual promiscuity of male homosexuals. FACT
And? On the contrary, quite a lot has changed. Again, the states with the highest problems for STI's and male promiscuity are religious ones. Promiscuity in and of itself isn't as big of a problem as high risk promiscuity, which is where the religion part comes in.
>This statement is puerile drivel.
Almost like I'm mocking what it's in response to. You have reading issues bud?
>Christianity is actually very supportive of homosexuals, (much more so than say Islam.)
"You know this new guy isn't so bad he only beats me instead of stabs me" jesus H christ you people are moronic
Please note many countries policies are to only test homosexuals and bar any heterosexual from testing. Any heterosexual who is tested is only done so if they were in direct proximity to the homosexual, i.e family or close friends. Cases easily well above 25,000 based on compound equ.
Somehow I dont believe this. Are people really running around screaming "dont persecute the gays" while also only testing gays? Doesnt make sense
It's understandable you are skeptical but the left hand does not need to know what the right one is doing to play its part effectively.
>and bar any heterosexual from testing.
I'm going to need a source for this. I could understand not actively testing heterosexuals, but I find it hard to believe they're being barred from testing.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monkeypox-case-definitions
Just an example but the UK don't even consider it monkeypox unless you're gay or meet the other two conditions (contact with a previously infected person or travel history)
>tfw will never have husbando because im an anomaly and literally every homosexual ever is everything that is impossibly degenerate and moronic
homophobes were right about gays
You guys should look up Gaetan Dugas and how he and the gay community pretty much intentionally started the HIV problem.
The gay community has a serious disease problem.
Dugas was later proven not to be Patient O (O for out of California, not Zero).
Though he did have an insane number of partners and was responsible for an insane number of infections.
I know that, I'm not claiming he was the first.
But look up the historical accounts, you can find excerpts from interviews with doctors who knew him on the salo forum archives. He had Kaposi's sarcoma and the doctors told him to stop spreading diseases and he looked them straight in the eye and told them he was going to keep fricking dudes at the bathhouses and they couldn't stop him.
He would frick guys with the lights dimmed and then after infecting them turn the lights up and reveal his sarcoma lesions and tell them that he was going to die and now they were too.
The HIV origin story is one of the most disgusting things I've ever read.
>He had Kaposi's sarcoma and the doctors told him to stop spreading diseases and he looked them straight in the eye and told them he was going to keep fricking dudes at the bathhouses and they couldn't stop him.
> Shilts refers to Dugas as "Patient Zero" and portrays him as having almost sociopathic behaviour by allegedly intentionally infecting, or at least recklessly endangering, others with the virus.
>Shilts's editor expressed his regret for having "made a conscious decision to vilify Dugas in the book and publicity campaign in order to spur sales."[10]
Do you think he changing his tune because of the changing times, or because he was genuinely full of it?
Shilts was gay himself, I don't see why he would make one of his own an enemy unless he really was a c**t.
This pretty bad.
>one of his own
People and their arbitrary ingroupism.
This story is not from Randy Shilts. These anecdotes came from the actual doctors who spoke to Dugas and tried to stop him from spreading HIV, as well as the gay community on Castro street where Dugas made himself a name for his disease spreading behaviour.
If he were making that story up he would have been sued for libel by the professionals he quoted. But since he has several medical professionals in the book giving their own separate and consistent accounts of how they tried to stop the gay community from spreading disease and the community just didn't want to listen, it seems extremely implausible that this was a fabrication by Shilts. What does seem likely to me, however, is that the modern media, which can't stand one of their sacred cows being treated like this, latched on to minor details like patient O being misprinted as patient 0, and Shilts maybe taking a too personal approach towards Dugas in other aspects, and use that to dismiss other aspects, like how Dugas deliberately infected up to 250 other men and probably caused many of their deaths due to his own selfishness, how many gay men refused to take even basic health precautions even when their lives were at stake, and how basically Castro street was almost a bugchaser community from the start, all of which is verifiable and has nothing to do with the standard PC complaints about Shilts.
What a fricking psycho.
You know, I've done readings about HIV/AIDS from a medical place. Like how it evolved and shit. I've never really been too interested in the social aspects of it.
I might do some further readings into this stuff. Because what I've read in the last ten minutes is fricking insane.
That's what I'm saying. If a gay guy -- in the '80s -- is accusing another gay of being a sociopath it must be true.
Oh sorry I misread, I thought you were calling Shilts a c**t. My mistake.
I can see why. I worded it poorly.
>Shilts was gay himself, I don't see why he would make one of his own an enemy unless he really was a c**t.
I have a family member who is a gay and according to them, a lot of gays absolutely despise bugchasers. Do you actually think he would feel any loyalty or kinship towards a guy who deliberately spread a disease which is disproportionately responsible for the deaths and disgust towards the gay community? A lot of gays are obviously going to hate that homosexual, and with good reason.
link to HIV story:
https://archive.amarna-forum.net/salo/salo/003167_patient-zero-and-the-early-days-of-hiv-aids_p001_o.html
That story is fricking wild
wtf
We are watching a new sexually transmitted disease evolve right before our eyes. This is amazing, a very special time to be alive in human history. I wouldn't be surprised if monkeypox evolves other mechanisms, such as an extended incubation period and exclusively being transmissible through contact between genitals. However viral STIs stay in their hosts indefinitely as well, flaring up occasionally when it becomes infectious, we can assume monkeypox will evolve in the same way, given enough transmission and time.
100 years from now our grandchildren will be groaning about how they got the pox from their last girlfriend or something. Of course the virus could just die off, a brief evolutionary experiment, it appears most viruses fail in establishing a host reservoir, stuff like COVID is the exception.
https://truthseeker.se/virology101
its shingles./
The real redpill is that the controllers release diseases to regulate fornication, as a society cannot last when degeneracy is too high, but they also do not want strong patriarchal families to form that will challwnege their power so they promote degeneracy when required
>most viruses fail in establishing a host reservoir,
The gay community has an extreme degree of connectivity between nodes. They don't care what this does to the rest of the world, they won't stop the behavior that spreads this. They will all have it, and some will pass it on to heteros. Even if it can't establish a foothold in the heterosexual community now, it will be active in the homosexual community forever, continuing to mutate and spread to heteros at the edges until one day it is able to get a foothold there too and then spread, much slower, but ultimately all over the place.
"viruses" never proven to exist. That's scientitism, not science.
/thread
scientism has never been proven to exist
That doesn't make any sense. Scientism is not something that needs proving, it's rejection of the scientific method in favour of dogma, and that's precisely what we observe today. No science, just dogma.
you have no proof of this
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
that's a statistical inevitability, has nothing to do with dogma
Publish research being false is statistical inevitability? I don't think so. What it does mean is that publish research is nothing but bias confirmation ie dogma.
*published research (typed too fast)
>Publish research being false is statistical inevitability?
yes
Research being false is false research. Nothing to with "statistical inevitability" (which is meaningless).
Don't forget "consensus science". Nothing gets published unless it goes with the consensus, however has nothing to do with science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19399558
Also
https://odysee.com/@Truth_will_set_You_Free:0/There-is-NO-VIRUS---Mega-Thread:7
You have no proof "viruses" exist. Why do you still believe in them? because that's what the consensus says.
wrong.
I worked in a lab that made our own viruses for our behavior experiments
We would have a GFP or TexasRed in the genetic payload to serve as an infection marker
I personally sac'ed and sectioned the brains of mice I knew were injected with these viruses. I saw the GFP under the fluorescence of a phase-contrast microscope, with the slide I made.
Viruses are real. We use them as a gene programming platform. Get your head out of your ass and actually engage the literature on viruses.
look at this NERD believing exactly what ~~*(they*~~) want him to!!
>i saw bleebloobleee under the blahblahbloobloo
all i hear is brainwashing!
Isn't it just shingles?
yeah. prob in conjunction with mRNA VAXX weakening immune systems.
Is this not just shingles/chicken pox which is coming out because the all the covid jabs have weakened/miss-directed immune systems?
Herpes zoster isn't the same virus.
yeah but they are blaming it on money pox but that prob bs its prob chicken pox for adults cos the COVID jabs weaken immune system
I hate homosexuals so much
you can see why, if you had a society in ancient times, a public health measure would be to get rid of male homosexuals. they are a very effective STD vector. removing them or suppressing them will improve the health of your civilisation
It's funny how nature keeps trying to get rid of gays.
Nature is HaShem's creation after all, it doesn't want another flood so it destroys homosexuals
Person A
>gives argument
Person B
>go leave
Why is it like this every time?
Because we used to be able to have civil discussion before you /misc/ racists showed up.
>the racism and homophobia capital of the internet used to be woke
keep repeating that to yourself
i don't think woke was even a word before the pol explosion
no, people whining about some opinions being bad and crying about not wanting to see them came with the snowflakes and plebittors after 2016
at least racists and homophobes are not hypocrites like your newhomosexual kind of filth
Person A
>Shits on the keyboard
Person B
>Your reasoning is easily contradicted in several ways (
On the contrary, having extra males who don't compete for mates seems like a pretty fricking valuable asset to heterosexual men, evolutionarily speaking.
>They're defective and orientate their life around an utterly unproductive and friviolous activity that is of no benefit to themselves or the species at large.
https://www.diverseeducation.com/demographics/lgbtq/article/15281777/gay-men-have-the-highest-rates-of-degree-attainment-in-us-study-finds
to MIttleman, 52% of gay men in the U.S. have a bachelor's degree, a total of 16 percentage points higher than the national average.
Wrong on that one too.
>A true unspooked scientific society would wholesale euthanize them
Oh sure and harvesting random organs for the benefit of people needing them totally makes people feel safe and secure in society. That's totally reasonable. Yawn. since you clearly missed it)
Dipshit you
>Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr why person A dismissed
Yes, anon, why is it like this every time?
#
Not him, orginal poster. That post was refuted thoroughly. Midwit papers aren't a sign of greater value which destroys whatever point you were trying to make and the world being a zero sum game, if anything it disenfranchised non special interest groups suffer even more because some homosexual took his place in university.
Not that poster either. Religion and humanism are the only things preventing people from realizing people have no innate value or soul and that the world is better off without a population that engages in daily anal sex with hundreds of partners spreading shit, disease and filth every step of the way. Frequent sexual losses make you effeminate and awkward. You'll never sit down and accomplish anything great because your abbarant behavior drives and dictates every thing you do. Your body is filled with disease. If it wasn't for christcucks, and secular christcuckism (humanism) the entirety of the LGBT rainbow would have been BTFO'd and extinct long ago.
>people have no innate value
All value is subjective. If you don't value the people around you at all, you're probably a psychopath. There's no value in this line of reasoning because it ignores evolution and basic human compassion.
>That post was refuted thoroughly.
An assertion is not a refutation. He kept making shit up and I simply had to quote more of the same post he refused to read. First he declared a bachelor's was irrelevant, then I quoted the portion about PhD's and he then tripled down by adding yet more criteria.
Explain to me how continuous use of ad hoc rescue devices counts as "refuting" somebody? Speaking of midwits... you might want to look in the mirror.
>If you don't value the people around you at all, you're probably a psychopath.
>Love thy neighbor, bigot, if you don't you're probably a Satanist.
Proof that secular humanism = Christianity 2.0 All feels and name calling when you're wrong.
Yeaaah sure evolution of empathy is totally fake and we only do things because we're taught to complete blank slates 100%
0/10 lame troll
You used the same line of rhetorical vomit as a hellfire and brimstone preacher, moron. You can't even deny it and just double down on your original point as if you didn't make such an embarrassing blunder.
>You used the same line of rhetorical vomit as a hellfire and brimstone preacher, moron.
So to recap,
You are indistinguishable from a bot.
So to recap, you don't have an argument and admit you're rhetoric is just koombyeyah rehashed christhomosexualry.
GAY is OK
OKAY!?
>transmission almost exclusively among gay males through sexual contact
False.
How do you explain the fact that many underage boys also have monkeypox?
If what you say is true, then the only explanation of this phenomenon would imply that many homosexuals are groomers, and since that's a homophobic conclusion we can rule it out and hence it follows you're wrong.