what kind of self monitoring detects human immunodeficiency
virus ?

or syphilis? do you self monitor for twenty years and note
the first signs of brain deterioration?


is there any evidence that having sex on the first tuesday
would do that or are you still in joking mode?


are you still joking or are you insane?


we could back to it immediately or as soon as you are
finishing joking around.

what are you so afraid of other people reading my replies?

is your cutting me off how you are looking for thoughful
dialogue on gay men's health challenges?


collaborative weBLog
the strategy. get tested together before you have sex
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tested+together%22

what is your definition of worked?

testing the blood supply for human immunodeficiency virus
has stopped new hemophiliac infection for all practical
purposes. that is my definition of saying something works.

has it really worked for gay white males or are most of the
infected gay white males, have they more resources to take
advantage of new therapies instead of becoming statistics?

gay white males are better educated and generally have
access to more resources including money.


"...so there must..." when you make a statement like that it
says you do not know anything about the state of the
situation. what we do know is about the blood supply, that
hemophiliacs are not getting infected because we are
rejecting the infected blood.

if partners get tested and the infected partner is rejected
then we are reducing the infection spreading like we reject
infected blood.

and do not jump on me about rejecting a sexual partner
because that happens all the time. people have all kinds of
superficial reasons for rejecting a sexual partner.
why shouldn't an infection be a perfectly legitimate reason
not to have sex with somebody?

anybody has a perfect right to reject you for any reason
superficial or otherwise.

Collaborative blog
The Strategy. Get tested together b4 you have sex
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tested+together%22

what is the evidence for that?


being a moralist is no way to solve this problem.

Collaborative blog.
The Strategy. Get tested together before you have sex.
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tested+together%22

Most of the gay men able to attend such summits are employed in the AIDS
Industry and they and their views completely dominate the subject of gay
men's health issues toward an 'HIV' centric view in terms of abstract
proposals and workshop presentations and list discussions. I have
personally been banned from the GAY MEN'S HEALTH SUMMIT e-list for asking
uncomfortable questions, raising a dissenting scientific critique or
offering an alternative medical model. I even called the founder of the
movement and though he said he agreed about the 'HIV' centric focus of the
summits in the last several years, nevertheless did not control the
moderation of the e-list or e-group on Yahoo, and the moderator(s) were
not out about who they were or were not disclosing their policy of
discrimination in supposed open discussions among gay men re: issues of
gay men's health.


I am the first AIDS Dissident appointed to the Federation of Gay Games,
Sydney 2002 "AIDS, Breast Cancer and Wellness Subcommittee."

I encourage the members or moderator(s) of GMHS to come clean and announce
their policies of AIDS CENSORSHIP on their e-list and to end such
discriminatory practises against the free flow of information and ideas.
The GMHS e-list moderator(s) do not allow any views posted to their forum
that challenge the 'HIV' theory of immuno-deficiency or that challenge the
safety and efficacy of condoms and lubricants.

Kelly Jon Landis

HIV/AIDS ALTERNATIVE VIEWS FORUM
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous

Please make available here contributors' censored messages, questions,
comment, suggestions, thought experiments, critique, feedback,
dialogue, debate, deliberations, challenges, disagreement, dissent,
kibbitzing, counterpoint, ideas, et alia, or on a blog at
http://www.blog-city.com for example, or both. Indicate what was
censored at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaymenshealthsummit/

Support editorial privilege. Critique the fair use of that editorial
privilege!

I disagree but I want to know with what I am disagreeing so well that I
could make an argument defending a person with that point of view,
see also
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=561

What have any of you folks out there studied regarding debate or
rhetoric ?

how are the choices to murder and infect some random person right for
you?

or is it true that no human being in the history of the human race has
never physically or emotionally hurt another person or murdered
them?...

or are those things a common part of human behavior where people do
things to benefit themselves but damage others and may the devil take
the hindmost?


A response to one thread of deliberations
Read the thread at
More either/ors
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaymen...t/message/4009

Read the thread

Scroll to the bottom
after going to the thread of messages beginning with number
4009 More either/ors Thu 2/17/2005
at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaymenshealthsummit

On 18 Feb 2005 12:36:22 -0800, dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu wrote:

a good question. Most people are so lost in their desire that bareback
that I don't think they are thinking about mortality or morality--with
the exception of those that disclose their status (positive or
negative).

I think the trick is to not add stigma of wagging the finger of just
say no at people who are ALREADY stigmatized by living in such a
institutionally and culturally homophobic society. That doesn't alter
behavior. Any more than it would to scream at a smoker "you'll die of
lung cancer!!!!"

The "war on (some) drugs" has failed abysmally as it takes the
punitive approach. Jail doesn't work--it merely acts to reinforce the
perception of society hating you. It also acts as fecund ground for
deeper training in "antisocial" activity or behavior.

The reasons people begin to make different choices are based on a
number of elements. Like just getting bored with doing the same old
shit. Wanting something more from life. From a positive reinforcement
that their life has some kind of meaning and value--that it is
precious as it is evanescent.

Crafting good public policy and community responses to things like the
meth endemic among a subset of males who have sex with males should be
about creating communities where people feel welcomed, validated and
useful. Where new options are provided.

But in the US, that's going to only be more and more difficult as any
such social programs are defunded, fought against, denigrated and
destroyed.

There are no easy or simple solutions to this problem. It will take
organizing, activating and protest.

As it has always been, it is time to ACT UP.

George M. Carter

Same Crap, Different Day. Looks like the AIDS Apologists such as George M.
Carter are the ones in denial of the growing movement of the HIV
Disaffected; of an informed AIDS dissent. If one disagrees with the AIDS
Apologists, an academic term describing those defending or deferring to
the dominant theory or model, often incredulously, one is labeled an AIDS
Denialist rather than an AIDS Dissenter or Dissident. IOW, those having
natural sex without latex condoms or benzene containing lubricants are
either: 1) intending to 'infect' or 2) intending to 'murder' others. And
the AIDS Apologists call us conspiratorialists. Looks like they are
suggesting a conspiracy here when they fail to recognize even one of those
persons who engage in socalled 'bareback' or natural, condom-less sex is
sincerely and honestly unable to give their informed consent, and must, in
principle, have become informed in their dissent on such as this; a life
and love-altering matter.

Kelly Jon Landis

THE NEW VIRUS MYTH FORUM
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:29:49 -0500, "KellyJonLandis"
<kjlandis@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:

What growing movement?

LOL. Yep. Name callin. Ain't it fun?

But in this case, you denialists have not provided one single decent
idea or any evidence to describe why people's immune systems collapse
in the specific way of AIDS with CD4 cells plummeting. All this
bullshit about recreational drugs and so forth is utter bollocks,

To the contrary--I call you an irresponsible asshole who will take the
complete lack of evidence of any real risk (short of allergy) from
usign latex condoms and indeed REFUTING evidence as a sign of your
cognitive dissonance. And a sign of just how profoundly much you are
an asshole.

HIV sure is a life-altering matter! Ask David Pasqua--oh...right. He
died of AIDS.

Having unprotected sex in the context of knowing honestly each other's
HIV status is one thing. Can you be sure it's honest? Sex always has
had that potential for betrayal, of course.

Making LOVE actually should be about concern for both yourself and
your partner. And knowing the facts, not some delirious nonsense
spewed by psychotic fools.

George M. Carter

In article <49a42e1b25e4548c22cfa4d851d2bfe8@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
KellyJonLandis <kjlandis@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
Three dictionaries -- two on paper and one, www.m-w.com, online --
define an apologist as (more or less) somebody who argues in defense
of something. There is no mention of credulity or dominant theories
in any of the definitions. Whether somebody becomes an apologist
is determined not by whether the ideas he believes are true or
false or justified or unjustified, but only on whether somebody
else chooses to attack those ideas. If you visit talk.origins and
sci.physics.relativity, you will see that people knowledgeable about
the sciences have become apologists for evolution and relativity,
because those theories are under attack from people who are, mostly,
ignorant and stupid.

All the above is based on a "bleached" interpretation of "apologist"
that ignores its connotations. In real life people don't ignore
connotations, and AIDS dissidents know this. AIDS dissidents engineer
the language they use for its connotations. For example, the word
"apologist", in spite of its neutral definition in dictionaries, is
associated with apologetics, a defense of belief in the unobservable,
and apology, an admission of wrongness.

The name "AIDS dissident" itself was coined at a time when the word
"dissident" had an aura of heroism from its association with Soviet
dissidents. In the years since, Soviet dissidents have ceased to be
part of our daily awareness, AIDS dissidents have taken their place.
The connotations of the word "dissident" have changed as a result.

When unadmirable people adopt an admirable name for themselves in
an attempt to make themselves admirable, they end up making the name
unadmirable instead.

A few years ago I called somebody, who was saying HIV doesn't cause
AIDS, a dissident. He thought it was an insult.

--
David Canzi

In article <49a42e1b25e4548c22cfa4d851d2bfe8@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
KellyJonLandis <kjlandis@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
For those known to be HIV positive who use dissident arguments either
to justify unprotected sex with uninformed partners or to convince
potential partners that it's safe, denialist is the kindest name they
can be called.

--
David Canzi

Would it be possible to argue more responsively but sharply without all
the http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm logical fallacies
we see like attacking the character of contributors to these
deliberations?.. What is the general or most frequent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies logical failure of
these wacky types of people?...