Australia has one of the strongest policy for immigration with infectious diseases iirc. But no it isn't a human right violation.AussieReaper wrote:
Isn't denying people treatment for such a disease one of the worst forms of human rights violation?
Denying immigration =/= denying treatmentCybargs wrote:
Australia has one of the strongest policy for immigration with infectious diseases iirc. But no it isn't a human right violation.AussieReaper wrote:
Isn't denying people treatment for such a disease one of the worst forms of human rights violation?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I guess they want to increase the market for the pharmaceutical companies, after all HIV = lifelong treatment profits
Ever consider that the "stigma" of HIV/AIDS, as an incurable, deadly, infectious disease, is justified and accurate? Perhaps it is that "stigma" that keeps people fearful and thus acts responsibly preventing them fro contracting it, not all of course.Marconius wrote:
PWNED! Yeah, you got told.lowing wrote:
You actually used the phrase, "Oh snap"? Oh well. What is next with you?, "pwned"?Marconius wrote:
Oh snap!
All that aside, I liked this part of the article:Helping remove the stigma away from HIV/AIDS is a good thing, plus medical research isn't being capped anymore by an anti-science government. It allows infected people a modicum of hope in the ongoing trial and treatment studies, rather than having them viewed as lost causes.Article wrote:
Obama made the announcement shortly before signing legislation extending federally funded HIV/AIDS treatment for hundreds of thousands of underinsured, low-income Americans.
Or are you now wanting to get all PC and hide or DE-emphasise exactly what AIDS is and what it will do?
Any opinion on my human right to protection from infectious deadly diseases over your apparent endorsement of their human right to expose me to those diseases?AussieReaper wrote:
Isn't denying people treatment for such a disease one of the worst forms of human rights violation?
Last edited by lowing (2009-10-31 14:00:31)
it's not infectious to the extent that warrants exculsion from name place here _________________
unless you're intending to share neddles and/or bear back the nearest HIV positive crackhead/bumboy/prostitue i think you're pretty safe.
unless you're intending to share neddles and/or bear back the nearest HIV positive crackhead/bumboy/prostitue i think you're pretty safe.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Really? Tell that to the family of Kimbery Bergalis, or Ryan White.m3thod wrote:
it's not infectious to the extent that warrants exculsion from name place here _________________
unless you're intending to share neddles and/or bear back the nearest HIV positive crackhead/bumboy/prostitue i think you're pretty safe.
Is it a chance you are willing to take with your children? Because you think they know everything there is to know about AIDS/HIV? You got no problem letting your kid go out and play with little infected Johnny??
Also, do you mind if I decide for myself what is the safe play for my family regarding AIDS/HIV?
Not to even mention that for a decision that does not "warrant exclusion" it sure has killed a lot of mother fuckers.
Last edited by lowing (2009-10-31 16:03:13)
That is a problem as there is no chance your kid will get infected unless they start kissing or something.lowing wrote:
Really? Tell that to the family of Kimbery Bergalis, or Ryan White.m3thod wrote:
it's not infectious to the extent that warrants exculsion from name place here _________________
unless you're intending to share neddles and/or bear back the nearest HIV positive crackhead/bumboy/prostitue i think you're pretty safe.
Is it a chance you are willing to take with your children? Because you think they know everything there is to know about AIDS/HIV? You got no problem letting your kid go out and play with little infected Johnny??
Also, do you mind if I decide for myself what is the safe play for my family regarding AIDS/HIV?
Not to even mention that for a decision that does not "warrant exclusion" it sure has killed a lot of mother fuckers.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yet again, tell that to the families of Bergalis and White.Spark wrote:
That is a problem as there is no chance your kid will get infected unless they start kissing or something.lowing wrote:
Really? Tell that to the family of Kimbery Bergalis, or Ryan White.m3thod wrote:
it's not infectious to the extent that warrants exculsion from name place here _________________
unless you're intending to share neddles and/or bear back the nearest HIV positive crackhead/bumboy/prostitue i think you're pretty safe.
Is it a chance you are willing to take with your children? Because you think they know everything there is to know about AIDS/HIV? You got no problem letting your kid go out and play with little infected Johnny??
Also, do you mind if I decide for myself what is the safe play for my family regarding AIDS/HIV?
Not to even mention that for a decision that does not "warrant exclusion" it sure has killed a lot of mother fuckers.
I will. How do I contact them?lowing wrote:
Yet again, tell that to the families of Bergalis and White.Spark wrote:
That is a problem as there is no chance your kid will get infected unless they start kissing or something.lowing wrote:
Really? Tell that to the family of Kimbery Bergalis, or Ryan White.
Is it a chance you are willing to take with your children? Because you think they know everything there is to know about AIDS/HIV? You got no problem letting your kid go out and play with little infected Johnny??
Also, do you mind if I decide for myself what is the safe play for my family regarding AIDS/HIV?
Not to even mention that for a decision that does not "warrant exclusion" it sure has killed a lot of mother fuckers.
Only Lowing knows.
Unless Johnny is into fucking heroin and likes to share his needles with my kid, I fail to see any problem.lowing wrote:
Really? Tell that to the family of Kimbery Bergalis, or Ryan White.m3thod wrote:
it's not infectious to the extent that warrants exculsion from name place here _________________
unless you're intending to share neddles and/or bear back the nearest HIV positive crackhead/bumboy/prostitue i think you're pretty safe.
Is it a chance you are willing to take with your children? Because you think they know everything there is to know about AIDS/HIV? You got no problem letting your kid go out and play with little infected Johnny??
Also, do you mind if I decide for myself what is the safe play for my family regarding AIDS/HIV?
Not to even mention that for a decision that does not "warrant exclusion" it sure has killed a lot of mother fuckers.
Maybe your kids are into fucking HIV infected friends or doing home blood transfusions knowing their friend has HIV/AIDs, but last I checked that's not the problem for everyone else.
Of course by your logic Johnny will shake your hand and poof you'll have 6 months to live.
m3thod wrote:
The process to lift the ban had begun under the administration of George W Bush.
"Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, signed legislation last year that removed HIV from a list of diseases "of public health significance" that effectively barred any person infected with HIV from entering the United States."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well the nwe have established 2 possiblities for you,edlT wrote:
Unless Johnny is into fucking heroin and likes to share his needles with my kid, I fail to see any problem.lowing wrote:
Really? Tell that to the family of Kimbery Bergalis, or Ryan White.m3thod wrote:
it's not infectious to the extent that warrants exculsion from name place here _________________
unless you're intending to share neddles and/or bear back the nearest HIV positive crackhead/bumboy/prostitue i think you're pretty safe.
Is it a chance you are willing to take with your children? Because you think they know everything there is to know about AIDS/HIV? You got no problem letting your kid go out and play with little infected Johnny??
Also, do you mind if I decide for myself what is the safe play for my family regarding AIDS/HIV?
Not to even mention that for a decision that does not "warrant exclusion" it sure has killed a lot of mother fuckers.
Maybe your kids are into fucking HIV infected friends or doing home blood transfusions knowing their friend has HIV/AIDs, but last I checked that's not the problem for everyone else.
Of course by your logic Johnny will shake your hand and poof you'll have 6 months to live.
A. you are liar.
and that is pretty much all that needs to be said about your post.
B. You have no kids and therefore have no idea what you are talking about.
Its the interent use your imagination.13/f/taiwan wrote:
I will. How do I contact them?lowing wrote:
Yet again, tell that to the families of Bergalis and White.Spark wrote:
That is a problem as there is no chance your kid will get infected unless they start kissing or something.
Niether of them were gay, or were drug users. Smart ass
Yet, HIV/AIDs still doesn't spread through playing unless you're sharing fucking needles and having sex.lowing wrote:
Well the nwe have established 2 possiblities for you,edlT wrote:
Unless Johnny is into fucking heroin and likes to share his needles with my kid, I fail to see any problem.lowing wrote:
Really? Tell that to the family of Kimbery Bergalis, or Ryan White.
Is it a chance you are willing to take with your children? Because you think they know everything there is to know about AIDS/HIV? You got no problem letting your kid go out and play with little infected Johnny??
Also, do you mind if I decide for myself what is the safe play for my family regarding AIDS/HIV?
Not to even mention that for a decision that does not "warrant exclusion" it sure has killed a lot of mother fuckers.
Maybe your kids are into fucking HIV infected friends or doing home blood transfusions knowing their friend has HIV/AIDs, but last I checked that's not the problem for everyone else.
Of course by your logic Johnny will shake your hand and poof you'll have 6 months to live.
A. you are liar.
and that is pretty much all that needs to be said about your post.
B. You have no kids and therefore have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course you'll just continue to disregard this and desperately try to discredit everyone else in a sad attempt to prove a losing point.
And no, neither of those kids were into heroin or sex, they had fucking blood transfusions (welcome to 2009, where that type of mistake doesn't happen unless you live in the slums..oh wait, I'm guessing you do). Do your kids have blood transfusions with their friends? Does your hospital use barbaric methods that don't include testing blood before they do a transfusion?
Not that I'm disputing the point, but neither of those links demonstrates that it's not just the US. Particularly not the first one "A practical guide to US visas".FEOS wrote:
No. It's not limited to HIV. It's called preventing people with various communicable diseases (not just HIV) from immigrating.AussieReaper wrote:
Isn't denying people treatment for such a disease one of the worst forms of human rights violation?
http://books.google.com/books?id=ijeL_u … mp;f=false
It's not unique to the US.A visa may be denied for a number of reasons, some of which being that the applicant:
* has committed fraud or misrepresentation in his or her application
* has a criminal record or has criminal charges pending
* is considered to be a security risk
* cannot prove to have strong ties to their current country of residence
* intends to reside or work permanently in the country she/he will visit if not applying for an immigrant or work visa respectively
* does not have a legitimate reason for the journey
* has no visible means of sustenance
* does not have travel arrangements (i.e. transport and lodging) in the destination country
* does not have a health/travel insurance valid for the destination and the duration of stay
* does not have a good moral character
* is applying on excessively short notice
* had their previous visa application(s) rejected and cannot prove that the reasons for the previous denials no longer exist or are not applicable anymore
* is a citizen of a country with whom the host country has poor or non-existent relations
* has a communicable disease, such as tuberculosis
* has previous visa/immigration violations
* has a passport that expires too soon
* didn't use a previously issued visa at all without a valid reason (e.g. a trip cancellation due to a family emergency)
* fails to demonstrate intent to return (for non-immigrants)
I've never been asked to provide medical information when applying for visas.FEOS wrote:
Again, not just the US.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm mostly intrigued as to what magical device the US has been using to detect HIV in any and all people entering the country...
When you apply for a visa, do you not have to provide some medical information, to include vaccination and certain other records (like TB tests)?
Nothing "magical" about it.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-11-01 12:48:15)
The first one was to show that it's not just HIV, but multiple communicable diseases.Bertster7 wrote:
Not that I'm disputing the point, but neither of those links demonstrates that it's not just the US. Particularly not the first one "A practical guide to US visas".FEOS wrote:
No. It's not limited to HIV. It's called preventing people with various communicable diseases (not just HIV) from immigrating.AussieReaper wrote:
Isn't denying people treatment for such a disease one of the worst forms of human rights violation?
http://books.google.com/books?id=ijeL_u … mp;f=false
It's not unique to the US.A visa may be denied for a number of reasons, some of which being that the applicant:
* has committed fraud or misrepresentation in his or her application
* has a criminal record or has criminal charges pending
* is considered to be a security risk
* cannot prove to have strong ties to their current country of residence
* intends to reside or work permanently in the country she/he will visit if not applying for an immigrant or work visa respectively
* does not have a legitimate reason for the journey
* has no visible means of sustenance
* does not have travel arrangements (i.e. transport and lodging) in the destination country
* does not have a health/travel insurance valid for the destination and the duration of stay
* does not have a good moral character
* is applying on excessively short notice
* had their previous visa application(s) rejected and cannot prove that the reasons for the previous denials no longer exist or are not applicable anymore
* is a citizen of a country with whom the host country has poor or non-existent relations
* has a communicable disease, such as tuberculosis
* has previous visa/immigration violations
* has a passport that expires too soon
* didn't use a previously issued visa at all without a valid reason (e.g. a trip cancellation due to a family emergency)
* fails to demonstrate intent to return (for non-immigrants)
The second link refers to visas in general, and most visas shown on that page are not US visas.
Both my wife and I have had to provide immunization records. Many times, it depends on where you are traveling to/from. If you are traveling from a "first world" country, it's usually not an issue. Traveling back, you often have to go through a medical kabuki dance, however.Bert wrote:
I've never been asked to provide medical information when applying for visas.FEOS wrote:
Again, not just the US.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm mostly intrigued as to what magical device the US has been using to detect HIV in any and all people entering the country...
When you apply for a visa, do you not have to provide some medical information, to include vaccination and certain other records (like TB tests)?
Nothing "magical" about it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
But there is nothing in either of those links that shows the US isn't the only country to prevent people with HIV from immigrating - I'm not saying it is, just that those links don't show that not to be the case.FEOS wrote:
The first one was to show that it's not just HIV, but multiple communicable diseases.Bertster7 wrote:
Not that I'm disputing the point, but neither of those links demonstrates that it's not just the US. Particularly not the first one "A practical guide to US visas".FEOS wrote:
No. It's not limited to HIV. It's called preventing people with various communicable diseases (not just HIV) from immigrating.AussieReaper wrote:
Isn't denying people treatment for such a disease one of the worst forms of human rights violation?
http://books.google.com/books?id=ijeL_u … mp;f=false
It's not unique to the US.A visa may be denied for a number of reasons, some of which being that the applicant:
* has committed fraud or misrepresentation in his or her application
* has a criminal record or has criminal charges pending
* is considered to be a security risk
* cannot prove to have strong ties to their current country of residence
* intends to reside or work permanently in the country she/he will visit if not applying for an immigrant or work visa respectively
* does not have a legitimate reason for the journey
* has no visible means of sustenance
* does not have travel arrangements (i.e. transport and lodging) in the destination country
* does not have a health/travel insurance valid for the destination and the duration of stay
* does not have a good moral character
* is applying on excessively short notice
* had their previous visa application(s) rejected and cannot prove that the reasons for the previous denials no longer exist or are not applicable anymore
* is a citizen of a country with whom the host country has poor or non-existent relations
* has a communicable disease, such as tuberculosis
* has previous visa/immigration violations
* has a passport that expires too soon
* didn't use a previously issued visa at all without a valid reason (e.g. a trip cancellation due to a family emergency)
* fails to demonstrate intent to return (for non-immigrants)
The second link refers to visas in general, and most visas shown on that page are not US visas.
Really?FEOS wrote:
Both my wife and I have had to provide immunization records. Many times, it depends on where you are traveling to/from. If you are traveling from a "first world" country, it's usually not an issue. Traveling back, you often have to go through a medical kabuki dance, however.Bert wrote:
I've never been asked to provide medical information when applying for visas.FEOS wrote:
Again, not just the US.
When you apply for a visa, do you not have to provide some medical information, to include vaccination and certain other records (like TB tests)?
Nothing "magical" about it.
I never have. Maybe that's because I've never travelled to the US from a non 1st world country.
For my U.S. immigration visa (which is technically a non-immigrant visa that allows the beneficiary to adjust status to legal permanent resident,) I had to have a thorough medical examination as well as a fairly comprehensive suite of inoculations before the consulate would entertain my petition at all. As part of adjusting status to LPR, another more thorough medical examination is required as well. My previous travels have been on the Visa Waiver Programme, in which you simply have to check "Yes" or "No" to a series of questions asking you for anything from communicable diseases to Nazi ties.
All of my other travels have been to the Schengen countries and countries with a reciprocity agreement with Denmark requiring no medical examination or records.
All of my other travels have been to the Schengen countries and countries with a reciprocity agreement with Denmark requiring no medical examination or records.
Sorry yer wrong, Bergalis contracted it through her infected dentist who was working on her teeth. and again, you are a liar, or you do not have kids and therefore have no idea what you are talking about regarding protecting them.edlT wrote:
Yet, HIV/AIDs still doesn't spread through playing unless you're sharing fucking needles and having sex.lowing wrote:
Well the nwe have established 2 possiblities for you,edlT wrote:
Unless Johnny is into fucking heroin and likes to share his needles with my kid, I fail to see any problem.
Maybe your kids are into fucking HIV infected friends or doing home blood transfusions knowing their friend has HIV/AIDs, but last I checked that's not the problem for everyone else.
Of course by your logic Johnny will shake your hand and poof you'll have 6 months to live.
A. you are liar.
and that is pretty much all that needs to be said about your post.
B. You have no kids and therefore have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course you'll just continue to disregard this and desperately try to discredit everyone else in a sad attempt to prove a losing point.
And no, neither of those kids were into heroin or sex, they had fucking blood transfusions (welcome to 2009, where that type of mistake doesn't happen unless you live in the slums..oh wait, I'm guessing you do). Do your kids have blood transfusions with their friends? Does your hospital use barbaric methods that don't include testing blood before they do a transfusion?
I suppose you do not want to cover the issue of detection. People who get infected do not show signs of the disease for a long time and can and will pass it on knowingly or unknowingly.
I do not need to discredit "everyone else", the sheer fuckin' numbers of people infected and getting infected does that all by itself.
Lastly, you say it does not spread unless you are playing with needles or having sex. I suppose your solution is to simply not have sex huh. Try stepping into the world of real solutions will ya.
Last edited by lowing (2009-11-01 13:21:32)
I believe it was Dilbert who pointed out that Australia does the same thing.Bertster7 wrote:
But there is nothing in either of those links that shows the US isn't the only country to prevent people with HIV from immigrating - I'm not saying it is, just that those links don't show that not to be the case.
My point was less focused on HIV specifically and more focused on the class of "communicable disease"--MANY countries limit immigration based on that criteria.
I bet if you traveled from the UK to say the Amazonas region or SE Asia, you'd have to have a tb test when you came back.Bertster7 wrote:
Really?FEOS wrote:
Both my wife and I have had to provide immunization records. Many times, it depends on where you are traveling to/from. If you are traveling from a "first world" country, it's usually not an issue. Traveling back, you often have to go through a medical kabuki dance, however.Bert wrote:
I've never been asked to provide medical information when applying for visas.
I never have. Maybe that's because I've never travelled to the US from a non 1st world country.
For me, it may be a military requirement, I'm not sure. My wife may have had to because she was exposed to a susceptible population (orphans and workers). Regardless, it's not unusual.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think lowing's ignoring you.Kmarion wrote:
m3thod wrote:
The process to lift the ban had begun under the administration of George W Bush.
"Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, signed legislation last year that removed HIV from a list of diseases "of public health significance" that effectively barred any person infected with HIV from entering the United States."
No amount of talk to the families of two people will change the fact that HIV is spread only through direct body fluid transfer. Dental operations = yes, that could occur as it is a medical procedure. Playing in the playground = you must be fucking kidding me.lowing wrote:
Sorry yer wrong, Bergalis contracted it through her infected dentist who was working on her teeth. and again, you are a liar, or you do not have kids and therefore have no idea what you are talking about regarding protecting them.edlT wrote:
Yet, HIV/AIDs still doesn't spread through playing unless you're sharing fucking needles and having sex.lowing wrote:
Well the nwe have established 2 possiblities for you,
A. you are liar.
and that is pretty much all that needs to be said about your post.
B. You have no kids and therefore have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course you'll just continue to disregard this and desperately try to discredit everyone else in a sad attempt to prove a losing point.
And no, neither of those kids were into heroin or sex, they had fucking blood transfusions (welcome to 2009, where that type of mistake doesn't happen unless you live in the slums..oh wait, I'm guessing you do). Do your kids have blood transfusions with their friends? Does your hospital use barbaric methods that don't include testing blood before they do a transfusion?
I suppose you do not want to cover the issue of detection. People who get infected do not show signs of the disease for a long time and can and will pass it on knowingly or unknowingly.
I do not need to discredit "everyone else", the sheer fuckin' numbers of people infected and getting infected does that all by itself.
Lastly, you say it does not spread unless you are playing with needles or having sex. I suppose your solution is to simply not have sex huh. Try stepping into the world of real solutions will ya.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I guess when playing on the play ground as kids are there is always a chance one of them could get cut and bleed on the other/ all over the damn place.
I still can't comprehend how letting more people with a deadly disease into the country is a good idea. Maybe Obama didn't like this blood test results.
I still can't comprehend how letting more people with a deadly disease into the country is a good idea. Maybe Obama didn't like this blood test results.
Last edited by Macbeth (2009-11-01 19:30:18)