Closing USAID

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to stop helping people in other countries and start helping people here.

False choice. We - the richest nation in t the world - can do both.

And yet, thanks to the GOP we are cutting taxes for billionaires and eliminating SNAP and Medicaid.

Disgusting.

We are trillions of $$ in debt and very soon might not be the Reserve currency.

Read up on what is going on in the world around you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to stop helping people in other countries and start helping people here.

False choice. We - the richest nation in t the world - can do both.

And yet, thanks to the GOP we are cutting taxes for billionaires and eliminating SNAP and Medicaid.

Disgusting.

We are trillions of $$ in debt and very soon might not be the Reserve currency.

Read up on what is going on in the world around you.

So why are your guys trying to add trillions to the deficit right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to stop helping people in other countries and start helping people here.

When a global pandemic can shut down your kids’ school, or a war in one region can drastically affect the price of the gas you use in your car, words like “there” and “here” become less useful.

Clearly we were looking out for our own interests by investing in other countries growth and stability. And by the way, if we don’t do it, other countries are willing to step in — China and Russia also want to invest in Africa and they have an advantage we don’t, namely the ability to direct state owned businesses overseas. This is a dumb move that will strengthen our adversaries.

[Anonymous]

Rubio and Marocco may be firing all of the USAID employees but their contracts live on (somehow).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TEN MILLION DOLLARS for “volunteer male circumcision” in Mozambique.

That’s where our hard earned tax dollars had been funneled. Why???

Because it helps prevent the spread of HIV

Want to know what prevents the spread of HIV almost 100% - not having male on make sex. We aren’t allowed to say this out loud, but it is true.

You are "not allowed to say this out loud," because it is stupid and factually untrue. You are embarrassing yourself. Please educate yourself on HIV.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/how-is-hiv-transmitted

I cannot even believe there are Americans this ignorant about HIV/AIDS in this day and age. HIV spreads by blood, semen, rectal or vaginal fluids and breast milk. 52% of all HIV cases globally are women - 18.2 million women. So, stopping male on male sex will not 100% stop the AIDS epidemic.

In the US, 22% of all new HIV infections are among people who report heterosexual contact (15% women, 7% men). 7% of new infections are among people who inject drugs.

Circumcision of men decreases HIV transmission rates by about 50%, because the foreskin has cells that are more vulnerable to HIV infection

Read more here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127372/

Helping slow the spread of HIV outside the US is important for many reasons, but generally the biggest one is that HIV infection leads to increased treatment costs (drugs that reduce HIV viral load as well as treatment of AIDS related illnesses) and decreases the productive value of humans (productive value means they work less, earn less and pay fewer taxes). USAID and the USG broadly both at home and abroad sees how it is less costly to prevent or reduce disease than to suffer the consequences of increased spread.

DOGE is focused on line item reductions and doesn't take the time (or have the sense, frankly) to investigate why these investments are made.

It is not some woke group of USAID staffers that came up with a crazy corrupt way to use USG funds. HIV/AIDS prevention is a global effort coordinate among many countries via national governments, international organizations and NGOs, backed by a lot of scientific trials.

You could figure any of this out if you googled and read a range of reliable sources. 15 minutes is all it would take.

Sorry it is 82% of cases. Women get HIV because - you guessed it - the men they have sex with had male on male sexual contact.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7138a1.htm#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20transmission%20category,MMSC%20and%20injection%20drug%20use.

It is absolutely a male on male sexual contact disease that would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact. So no, I do not want to pay for Mozambique men to circumcise themselves to avoid transmission of HIV because they choose to have unprotected male on male sexual contact.

You are misquoting your source which is about large urban clusters. You quote a sub-conclusion based on those select groups, and you conflate IV drug use transmission with MSM transmission. The article opens with this quote -- "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 68% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2020"

Yes, that is more than half of transmission but it is not all. Women do get HIV from men but those men do not always get it from gay men, and women also get HIV from IV drug use.

You say this disease "would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact". This isn't correct. Even if you could magically stop all male/male sexual contact, you would still have male/female transmission and IV drug use transmission. In many cases, in less developed countries, in addition to those methods of transmission, there has been medical needle use transmission because medical professionals in poor/less developed countries sometimes have to reuse needles.

Additionally, how would you even propose stopping "male on male sexual contact". Are you going to arrest millions of people? Are you going to break into bedrooms? Are you just going to shame all gay men? Are you going to let them die and hope that "suffering the consequences" of their behavior will get them to stop? What is your idea -- that if gay men all die, HIV will end?

Every good health official knows that it is not possible to end male on male sexual contact. Policies like those I suggested in the previous paragraph just drive this behavior underground, making it harder to educate people about AIDS transmission, harder to get them into treatment (which can greatly decrease transmission) and harder to get them to voluntarily engage in safe sex practices like condoms and circumcision. And, it costs the government & health systems (and therefore taxpayers) far more to address late stage treatment and disease burden on the GDP. That is why health programs do not stigmatize MSM sex. It's not actually productive to reducing HIV transmission.

Health programs should stigmatize highly risky behaviors - like male on male sex. We stigmatize IV drug use, prostitution, drinking while pregnant, etc. so stop the gaslighting. AIDS exists and spreads because we refuse to be honest about the cause. And then we expect US taxpayers to pay for it. This is ludicrous. I cannot believe the billions we have paid so African men can avoid natural consequences of risky behavior.

TBH, from the point of view of effective treatment, we have learned that stigmatizing these groups does not actually stop transmission, it makes transmission harder to stop. In general, non-stigmatizing access to treatment and education and prevention assistance is more effective than shame and stigma in reducing HIV rates. .

Globally, anti-LGBT laws continue to hinder the HIV response - in Africa as well.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhiv/article/PIIS2352-3018(22)00265-X/fulltext#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20risk%20of,and%207%25%20vs%2022%25).

The men engaging in male on male sex would never consider themselves LGB and would not think “anti-LGB” laws affect them. When I was in Afghanistan we were not allowed to even discuss this happening (along with the child rape) as to not offend the Afghans who see male on male sex as religiously acceptable to avoid dirty women. Forced tolerance.

So why don’t we offer free circumcisions to all Americans if it is so necessary for public health?

We do. Where are you joining us from, comrade?

No - my private health insurance paid for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TEN MILLION DOLLARS for “volunteer male circumcision” in Mozambique.

That’s where our hard earned tax dollars had been funneled. Why???

Because it helps prevent the spread of HIV

Want to know what prevents the spread of HIV almost 100% - not having male on make sex. We aren’t allowed to say this out loud, but it is true.

You are "not allowed to say this out loud," because it is stupid and factually untrue. You are embarrassing yourself. Please educate yourself on HIV.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/how-is-hiv-transmitted

I cannot even believe there are Americans this ignorant about HIV/AIDS in this day and age. HIV spreads by blood, semen, rectal or vaginal fluids and breast milk. 52% of all HIV cases globally are women - 18.2 million women. So, stopping male on male sex will not 100% stop the AIDS epidemic.

In the US, 22% of all new HIV infections are among people who report heterosexual contact (15% women, 7% men). 7% of new infections are among people who inject drugs.

Circumcision of men decreases HIV transmission rates by about 50%, because the foreskin has cells that are more vulnerable to HIV infection

Read more here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127372/

Helping slow the spread of HIV outside the US is important for many reasons, but generally the biggest one is that HIV infection leads to increased treatment costs (drugs that reduce HIV viral load as well as treatment of AIDS related illnesses) and decreases the productive value of humans (productive value means they work less, earn less and pay fewer taxes). USAID and the USG broadly both at home and abroad sees how it is less costly to prevent or reduce disease than to suffer the consequences of increased spread.

DOGE is focused on line item reductions and doesn't take the time (or have the sense, frankly) to investigate why these investments are made.

It is not some woke group of USAID staffers that came up with a crazy corrupt way to use USG funds. HIV/AIDS prevention is a global effort coordinate among many countries via national governments, international organizations and NGOs, backed by a lot of scientific trials.

You could figure any of this out if you googled and read a range of reliable sources. 15 minutes is all it would take.

Sorry it is 82% of cases. Women get HIV because - you guessed it - the men they have sex with had male on male sexual contact.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7138a1.htm#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20transmission%20category,MMSC%20and%20injection%20drug%20use.

It is absolutely a male on male sexual contact disease that would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact. So no, I do not want to pay for Mozambique men to circumcise themselves to avoid transmission of HIV because they choose to have unprotected male on male sexual contact.

You are misquoting your source which is about large urban clusters. You quote a sub-conclusion based on those select groups, and you conflate IV drug use transmission with MSM transmission. The article opens with this quote -- "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 68% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2020"

Yes, that is more than half of transmission but it is not all. Women do get HIV from men but those men do not always get it from gay men, and women also get HIV from IV drug use.

You say this disease "would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact". This isn't correct. Even if you could magically stop all male/male sexual contact, you would still have male/female transmission and IV drug use transmission. In many cases, in less developed countries, in addition to those methods of transmission, there has been medical needle use transmission because medical professionals in poor/less developed countries sometimes have to reuse needles.

Additionally, how would you even propose stopping "male on male sexual contact". Are you going to arrest millions of people? Are you going to break into bedrooms? Are you just going to shame all gay men? Are you going to let them die and hope that "suffering the consequences" of their behavior will get them to stop? What is your idea -- that if gay men all die, HIV will end?

Every good health official knows that it is not possible to end male on male sexual contact. Policies like those I suggested in the previous paragraph just drive this behavior underground, making it harder to educate people about AIDS transmission, harder to get them into treatment (which can greatly decrease transmission) and harder to get them to voluntarily engage in safe sex practices like condoms and circumcision. And, it costs the government & health systems (and therefore taxpayers) far more to address late stage treatment and disease burden on the GDP. That is why health programs do not stigmatize MSM sex. It's not actually productive to reducing HIV transmission.

Health programs should stigmatize highly risky behaviors - like male on male sex. We stigmatize IV drug use, prostitution, drinking while pregnant, etc. so stop the gaslighting. AIDS exists and spreads because we refuse to be honest about the cause. And then we expect US taxpayers to pay for it. This is ludicrous. I cannot believe the billions we have paid so African men can avoid natural consequences of risky behavior.

TBH, from the point of view of effective treatment, we have learned that stigmatizing these groups does not actually stop transmission, it makes transmission harder to stop. In general, non-stigmatizing access to treatment and education and prevention assistance is more effective than shame and stigma in reducing HIV rates. .

Globally, anti-LGBT laws continue to hinder the HIV response - in Africa as well.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhiv/article/PIIS2352-3018(22)00265-X/fulltext#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20risk%20of,and%207%25%20vs%2022%25).

The men engaging in male on male sex would never consider themselves LGB and would not think “anti-LGB” laws affect them. When I was in Afghanistan we were not allowed to even discuss this happening (along with the child rape) as to not offend the Afghans who see male on male sex as religiously acceptable to avoid dirty women. Forced tolerance.

So why don’t we offer free circumcisions to all Americans if it is so necessary for public health?

Because we essentially do - infant circumcision is generally covered by health insurance.

But, we also are not as concerned about circumcision because people in the US have consistent access to condoms, pre exposure medication and treatment. This is not the case in Mozambique.

Thanks for your inapposite anecdote about Afghanistan. My point was about Mozambique. In Afghanistan, the main at risk subgroups are prostitutes, prisoners and IV drug users - not MSM - so circumcision is not an effective way to prevent spread.

And we just chug along paying for “pre exposure” treatment instead of saying anal sex is what gives you HIV. IV drug users share needles with men who have sex with men. Female prostitutes service men who have sex with men. You just think the ultimate freedom is male on male anal sex, and who are we to stand in the way of pharmaceutical companies and NGOs profiting off of anal sex. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TEN MILLION DOLLARS for “volunteer male circumcision” in Mozambique.

That’s where our hard earned tax dollars had been funneled. Why???

Because it helps prevent the spread of HIV

Want to know what prevents the spread of HIV almost 100% - not having male on make sex. We aren’t allowed to say this out loud, but it is true.

You are "not allowed to say this out loud," because it is stupid and factually untrue. You are embarrassing yourself. Please educate yourself on HIV.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/how-is-hiv-transmitted

I cannot even believe there are Americans this ignorant about HIV/AIDS in this day and age. HIV spreads by blood, semen, rectal or vaginal fluids and breast milk. 52% of all HIV cases globally are women - 18.2 million women. So, stopping male on male sex will not 100% stop the AIDS epidemic.

In the US, 22% of all new HIV infections are among people who report heterosexual contact (15% women, 7% men). 7% of new infections are among people who inject drugs.

Circumcision of men decreases HIV transmission rates by about 50%, because the foreskin has cells that are more vulnerable to HIV infection

Read more here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127372/

Helping slow the spread of HIV outside the US is important for many reasons, but generally the biggest one is that HIV infection leads to increased treatment costs (drugs that reduce HIV viral load as well as treatment of AIDS related illnesses) and decreases the productive value of humans (productive value means they work less, earn less and pay fewer taxes). USAID and the USG broadly both at home and abroad sees how it is less costly to prevent or reduce disease than to suffer the consequences of increased spread.

DOGE is focused on line item reductions and doesn't take the time (or have the sense, frankly) to investigate why these investments are made.

It is not some woke group of USAID staffers that came up with a crazy corrupt way to use USG funds. HIV/AIDS prevention is a global effort coordinate among many countries via national governments, international organizations and NGOs, backed by a lot of scientific trials.

You could figure any of this out if you googled and read a range of reliable sources. 15 minutes is all it would take.

Sorry it is 82% of cases. Women get HIV because - you guessed it - the men they have sex with had male on male sexual contact.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7138a1.htm#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20transmission%20category,MMSC%20and%20injection%20drug%20use.

It is absolutely a male on male sexual contact disease that would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact. So no, I do not want to pay for Mozambique men to circumcise themselves to avoid transmission of HIV because they choose to have unprotected male on male sexual contact.

You are misquoting your source which is about large urban clusters. You quote a sub-conclusion based on those select groups, and you conflate IV drug use transmission with MSM transmission. The article opens with this quote -- "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 68% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2020"

Yes, that is more than half of transmission but it is not all. Women do get HIV from men but those men do not always get it from gay men, and women also get HIV from IV drug use.

You say this disease "would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact". This isn't correct. Even if you could magically stop all male/male sexual contact, you would still have male/female transmission and IV drug use transmission. In many cases, in less developed countries, in addition to those methods of transmission, there has been medical needle use transmission because medical professionals in poor/less developed countries sometimes have to reuse needles.

Additionally, how would you even propose stopping "male on male sexual contact". Are you going to arrest millions of people? Are you going to break into bedrooms? Are you just going to shame all gay men? Are you going to let them die and hope that "suffering the consequences" of their behavior will get them to stop? What is your idea -- that if gay men all die, HIV will end?

Every good health official knows that it is not possible to end male on male sexual contact. Policies like those I suggested in the previous paragraph just drive this behavior underground, making it harder to educate people about AIDS transmission, harder to get them into treatment (which can greatly decrease transmission) and harder to get them to voluntarily engage in safe sex practices like condoms and circumcision. And, it costs the government & health systems (and therefore taxpayers) far more to address late stage treatment and disease burden on the GDP. That is why health programs do not stigmatize MSM sex. It's not actually productive to reducing HIV transmission.

Health programs should stigmatize highly risky behaviors - like male on male sex. We stigmatize IV drug use, prostitution, drinking while pregnant, etc. so stop the gaslighting. AIDS exists and spreads because we refuse to be honest about the cause. And then we expect US taxpayers to pay for it. This is ludicrous. I cannot believe the billions we have paid so African men can avoid natural consequences of risky behavior.

TBH, from the point of view of effective treatment, we have learned that stigmatizing these groups does not actually stop transmission, it makes transmission harder to stop. In general, non-stigmatizing access to treatment and education and prevention assistance is more effective than shame and stigma in reducing HIV rates. .

Globally, anti-LGBT laws continue to hinder the HIV response - in Africa as well.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhiv/article/PIIS2352-3018(22)00265-X/fulltext#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20risk%20of,and%207%25%20vs%2022%25).

The men engaging in male on male sex would never consider themselves LGB and would not think “anti-LGB” laws affect them. When I was in Afghanistan we were not allowed to even discuss this happening (along with the child rape) as to not offend the Afghans who see male on male sex as religiously acceptable to avoid dirty women. Forced tolerance.

So why don’t we offer free circumcisions to all Americans if it is so necessary for public health?

We do. Where are you joining us from, comrade?

No - my private health insurance paid for it.

And if you didn’t have private health insurance, Medicaid would have paid for it as it does for any impoverished newborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to stop helping people in other countries and start helping people here.

False choice. We - the richest nation in t the world - can do both.

And yet, thanks to the GOP we are cutting taxes for billionaires and eliminating SNAP and Medicaid.

Disgusting.

We are trillions of $$ in debt and very soon might not be the Reserve currency.

Read up on what is going on in the world around you.

So why are your guys trying to add trillions to the deficit right now?

I’d love to know the answer to this question. I have seen it asked repeatedly, and there is never any response. Any at all.

Gosh, makes me just really wonder if you all are actually so committed to reducing the deficit! But that would be so dishonest of you, wouldn’t it?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rubio and Marocco may be firing all of the USAID employees but their contracts live on (somehow).

Who’s going to pay all these bills? Most USAiD employees are locked out of systems by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anxiously awaiting your answer.

^^^^^CRIMINAL^^^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anxiously awaiting your answer.

^^^^^CRIMINAL^^^^^

What’s the source of that jpg? Because it looks like fake news and lies to me. What has been reported by many reliable sources is that Elon Musk’s net worth has increased by 50 billion dollars+ since Donald Trump was elected. And Trump agreed Musk wont file financial disclosures unlike Samantha Power who filed them yearly…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TEN MILLION DOLLARS for “volunteer male circumcision” in Mozambique.

That’s where our hard earned tax dollars had been funneled. Why???

Because it helps prevent the spread of HIV

Want to know what prevents the spread of HIV almost 100% - not having male on make sex. We aren’t allowed to say this out loud, but it is true.

You are "not allowed to say this out loud," because it is stupid and factually untrue. You are embarrassing yourself. Please educate yourself on HIV.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/how-is-hiv-transmitted

I cannot even believe there are Americans this ignorant about HIV/AIDS in this day and age. HIV spreads by blood, semen, rectal or vaginal fluids and breast milk. 52% of all HIV cases globally are women - 18.2 million women. So, stopping male on male sex will not 100% stop the AIDS epidemic.

In the US, 22% of all new HIV infections are among people who report heterosexual contact (15% women, 7% men). 7% of new infections are among people who inject drugs.

Circumcision of men decreases HIV transmission rates by about 50%, because the foreskin has cells that are more vulnerable to HIV infection

Read more here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127372/

Helping slow the spread of HIV outside the US is important for many reasons, but generally the biggest one is that HIV infection leads to increased treatment costs (drugs that reduce HIV viral load as well as treatment of AIDS related illnesses) and decreases the productive value of humans (productive value means they work less, earn less and pay fewer taxes). USAID and the USG broadly both at home and abroad sees how it is less costly to prevent or reduce disease than to suffer the consequences of increased spread.

DOGE is focused on line item reductions and doesn't take the time (or have the sense, frankly) to investigate why these investments are made.

It is not some woke group of USAID staffers that came up with a crazy corrupt way to use USG funds. HIV/AIDS prevention is a global effort coordinate among many countries via national governments, international organizations and NGOs, backed by a lot of scientific trials.

You could figure any of this out if you googled and read a range of reliable sources. 15 minutes is all it would take.

Sorry it is 82% of cases. Women get HIV because - you guessed it - the men they have sex with had male on male sexual contact.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7138a1.htm#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20transmission%20category,MMSC%20and%20injection%20drug%20use.

It is absolutely a male on male sexual contact disease that would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact. So no, I do not want to pay for Mozambique men to circumcise themselves to avoid transmission of HIV because they choose to have unprotected male on male sexual contact.

You are misquoting your source which is about large urban clusters. You quote a sub-conclusion based on those select groups, and you conflate IV drug use transmission with MSM transmission. The article opens with this quote -- "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 68% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2020"

Yes, that is more than half of transmission but it is not all. Women do get HIV from men but those men do not always get it from gay men, and women also get HIV from IV drug use.

You say this disease "would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact". This isn't correct. Even if you could magically stop all male/male sexual contact, you would still have male/female transmission and IV drug use transmission. In many cases, in less developed countries, in addition to those methods of transmission, there has been medical needle use transmission because medical professionals in poor/less developed countries sometimes have to reuse needles.

Additionally, how would you even propose stopping "male on male sexual contact". Are you going to arrest millions of people? Are you going to break into bedrooms? Are you just going to shame all gay men? Are you going to let them die and hope that "suffering the consequences" of their behavior will get them to stop? What is your idea -- that if gay men all die, HIV will end?

Every good health official knows that it is not possible to end male on male sexual contact. Policies like those I suggested in the previous paragraph just drive this behavior underground, making it harder to educate people about AIDS transmission, harder to get them into treatment (which can greatly decrease transmission) and harder to get them to voluntarily engage in safe sex practices like condoms and circumcision. And, it costs the government & health systems (and therefore taxpayers) far more to address late stage treatment and disease burden on the GDP. That is why health programs do not stigmatize MSM sex. It's not actually productive to reducing HIV transmission.

Health programs should stigmatize highly risky behaviors - like male on male sex. We stigmatize IV drug use, prostitution, drinking while pregnant, etc. so stop the gaslighting. AIDS exists and spreads because we refuse to be honest about the cause. And then we expect US taxpayers to pay for it. This is ludicrous. I cannot believe the billions we have paid so African men can avoid natural consequences of risky behavior.

TBH, from the point of view of effective treatment, we have learned that stigmatizing these groups does not actually stop transmission, it makes transmission harder to stop. In general, non-stigmatizing access to treatment and education and prevention assistance is more effective than shame and stigma in reducing HIV rates. .

Globally, anti-LGBT laws continue to hinder the HIV response - in Africa as well.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhiv/article/PIIS2352-3018(22)00265-X/fulltext#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20risk%20of,and%207%25%20vs%2022%25).

The men engaging in male on male sex would never consider themselves LGB and would not think “anti-LGB” laws affect them. When I was in Afghanistan we were not allowed to even discuss this happening (along with the child rape) as to not offend the Afghans who see male on male sex as religiously acceptable to avoid dirty women. Forced tolerance.

So why don’t we offer free circumcisions to all Americans if it is so necessary for public health?

We do. Where are you joining us from, comrade?

No - my private health insurance paid for it.

And if you didn’t have private health insurance, Medicaid would have paid for it as it does for any impoverished newborn.

If it is essential for public health it should be provided by the US government for free - no questions asked. Or is this reserved for Mozambicans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anxiously awaiting your answer.

^^^^^CRIMINAL^^^^^

What’s the source of that jpg? Because it looks like fake news and lies to me. What has been reported by many reliable sources is that Elon Musk’s net worth has increased by 50 billion dollars+ since Donald Trump was elected. And Trump agreed Musk wont file financial disclosures unlike Samantha Power who filed them yearly…

It’s made up. But the RWNJs believe it while ignoring Trump and Musk adding to their billions off the backs of American taxpayers. #Alternative Facts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to stop helping people in other countries and start helping people here.

False choice. We - the richest nation in t the world - can do both.

And yet, thanks to the GOP we are cutting taxes for billionaires and eliminating SNAP and Medicaid.

Disgusting.

We are trillions of $$ in debt and very soon might not be the Reserve currency.

Read up on what is going on in the world around you.

So why do you want a $4 trillion tax cut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rubio and Marocco may be firing all of the USAID employees but their contracts live on (somehow).

Who’s going to pay all these bills? Most USAiD employees are locked out of systems by now.

I don't know. They can tell the judge that, tomorrow. "Sorry, your Honor, er cannot send out the funds because we've fired too many people.".

The judge may not be happy to hear that.