That is your belief and you are welcome to it...afterall, it says 'likely' cause not an absolute certainty and no where near a scientific consensus as put forward by RCADE.
"Likely" is used because there will never be a definitive answer. To scientists this isn't a moot point. To those with an agenda *coughjacqueitchcough* it gives wiggle room for them to convince themselves their stupidity has validity.
Also, it's not belief as a. high heat of cooking would kill it and b. HIV isn't transmitted via the GI tract in the absence of an open wound in the mouth. The GI tract is a hostile place and viruses/bacteria that infect by that route have evolved specialized mechanisms to do so.
This politician brought up the possibility of HIV spreading to humans via monkey sex and not a god damn thing you wrote makes that any less likely.
No, the virology of HIV makes it unlikely. Sorry you're too ignorant to see it.
Further, your statement that a bottom can not give hiv to a top in homosexual sex is just dead wrong.
Unless you've got a link this statement is worthless. Fact of the matter is direct contact between bodily fluids is necessary for HIV transmission. Bottoms are more susceptible because the tissue damage caused by anal sex provides openings for the virus present in the top's semen.
Unless there is an open wound on the top's penis, transmission is extremely unlikely.
Keep telling your tops that so they bareback you all you want
I was hoping you'd say that and show your true colors shitbag.
but anal sex is one of the easies ways to contact the disease because of all the blood vessels in the anus exposing both the top and the bottom.
Breakages that expose the bottom. Exposure to the top in the absence of an open wound is not going to result in transmission.
Now I will really offend you - I believe the monkey sex was probably gay monkey sex with a male monkey bottom giving aids to the human top.
Which, if you knew jack dick about HIV virology, you'd know to be absurd.
Sorry gay basher, all you've proven here is you're an over-compensator who's admitted more than they've denied.
This is the kind of move that will assuredly determine I'll not support this guy at all. Up to now I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt versus what I see on the rethug side. When a POTUS attacks personal liberty like this one, it takes precedence over the economy or any other matter.
I have trouble believing you were going to give him the benefit of the doubt, period. Also, why this act and none of the other F'd up shit he's already done? Fuck whiny religious people. They're the biggest bunch of self-centered pussies to ever exist and it's interesting that this is a bigger issue over something like the assassination of a US citizen without trial or court involvement or the passage of the NDAA.
Kill US citizens without trial? Benefit of the doubt. Indefinitely detain people in military custody? Benefit of the doubt. Offend some superstitious sensibilities? Fuck no, I won't vote for that fascist.