AfroChat - African American | Black Discussion Forums - View Single Post - HIV Transmitted To Babies Through Pre-Chewed Food

mlc0908 · March 12th, 2008, 10:17 AM

No disrespect intended but I didn't even bother to read the entire article and here's why.
I don't remember the exact years of the time frame quoted in the article but in about 10 years there were said to be only three cases proven by this theory.
The chances of contracting HIV/AIDS orally are very slim since both parties must have bleeding/open sores in their mouths.
"They" say the mothers pre-chew the food because the babies don't have teeth... well has it ever occurred to any of these rocket scientists that this virus has a period of dormancy in the beginning stages and these children just may have been born infected? It's not like it takes years for babies to cut teeth so the mothers aren't chewing the food through their toddler years. Isn't it possible that these babies were infected at birth but showed no signs or symptoms?
If the mothers knew they were infected, why would they put their children at risk?

Maybe I should go back and read the article to see what "they" say if anything in defense to my few little points. Bottom line, I don't believe it and wouldn't buy "their" story with monopoly money.

March 12th, 2008, 10:17 AM	#11 (permalink)
mlc0908 Afro Resident Emerging Voice mlc0908 is offline Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Jersey Posts: 332 Thanks: 27 Thanked 41 Times in 36 Posts Rep Power: 8 Credits: 2,278	Oh, the things "they" come up with.... No disrespect intended but I didn't even bother to read the entire article and here's why. I don't remember the exact years of the time frame quoted in the article but in about 10 years there were said to be only three cases proven by this theory. The chances of contracting HIV/AIDS orally are very slim since both parties must have bleeding/open sores in their mouths. "They" say the mothers pre-chew the food because the babies don't have teeth... well has it ever occurred to any of these rocket scientists that this virus has a period of dormancy in the beginning stages and these children just may have been born infected? It's not like it takes years for babies to cut teeth so the mothers aren't chewing the food through their toddler years. Isn't it possible that these babies were infected at birth but showed no signs or symptoms? If the mothers knew they were infected, why would they put their children at risk? Maybe I should go back and read the article to see what "they" say if anything in defense to my few little points. Bottom line, I don't believe it and wouldn't buy "their" story with monopoly money. __________________ A TRUE STAR NEVER LETS ANYONE STEAL THEIR SHINE!