Let me start by saying I am a gay male. Now let me rant a bit about the noise
the gay community has been making over the prohibition on men who've had sex
with other men from donating blood.

The activists are saying that this is unfair and discriminatory. They say that
the new tests are close to 100% accurate and therefore should catch any
HIV-tainted blood before it is used in transfusions. That may be true, but
they are not 100% accurate and gay men are a thousand times more likely to
be infected with HIV than heterosexual men, therefore, allowing this group to
donate blood will mean an increase in transfusion-borne infections.

Furthermore, just because the tests for HIV are reliable doesn't mean there
isn't some new undiscovered virus out there percolating through the gay
community. 25 years ago they didn't expect to find a MONKEY virus spreading
among humans, so who knows what exotic viruses are currently spreading
that have yet to be detected? The blood banks don't test for penguin
viruses - there would seem to be no need to - but all of the sudden the
latest rage among the gay crowd is sticking penguins up their asses and a
new epidemic is born! I'm surprised gerbil viruses aren't already
afflicting gay men.

Let me start by saying I doubt you are a gay man. And if you are, let me
also say that you prove the point that one can be gay and homophobic, some
of the most homophobic people have been gay. Your analysis assumes the
existance of an 'HIV' and that said entity of retroviral origin has been
properly isolated and, therefore, could conceivably be tested for in
anyone at anytime.

In science as in the law, the affirmative statement bares the burden of
proof. We don't act AS IF something might be true until it has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not upon those
critiquing or challenging the affirmative statement; and affirmative
statement affirms that something exists or causes something, acts upon
something, etc. It is not an affirmative statement to say that 'HIV' does
not exist or does not cause illnesses attributed to or associated with the
CDC redefinition of 20 previously known and unrelated illnesses called
'AIDS.'

The fact that you are willing to accept without question the evidence for
the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, seems to have been affected by your own sickness:
homophobia. Because, you then make the most groundless accusations of some
as yet unknown 'bugs' circulating among those of bad blood: those infected
faggots. Perhaps your shame at your own anal health and hygiene has
created for you a 'block' in your brain. Either that or you are sitting on
it. I'm not surprised Gerbil virus myths-- indeed-- are circulating in the
minds and mouths of immoral minorities.

There is not sufficient evidence to disallow donated blood from all gay
men and it is one more reason how the mindset of
'SAME-SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' lead to the unquestioned acceptance of the
'HIV=AIDS=DEATH' paradigm.


HIV DENIAL OR INFORMED AIDS DISSENT?

DID YOU KNOW hundreds of dissenting or dissident scientists, including
Nobel Laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences,
confirming alternative medicine's long questioning of the virus/germ mode
or 'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model, are calling into question the
dominant, conventional pharmaceutically-based scientific and medical
hypothesis for the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of
'HIV=AIDS?'

Dissidents dissent from a legitimate scientific and medical bases as to
the causatives and curatives for 29 previously known and unrelated 'AIDS'
clinically redefined illnesses, all of which occur in those diagnosed'HIV'
non-specific antibody negative. So, besides the definition and diagnosis
of what is called 'AIDS' Dissidents are also challenging the accuracy and
specifity of the 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests to measure infection
with any virus since there are over 60+ known cross-reactors from
pregnancy to the flu to immunizations to hepatitis to transfusions and on
and on. For these reasons and more, we call for a free scientific inquiry
and exchange at conferences and in college prep and continuing education
courses, letting others know of the conflicts in research methodologies
and ideologies which prevent our progress in the knowledge about the
health of persons given an 'HIV/AIDS' [mis]diagnosis.

We endorse a multi-factorial approach to immune suficiency and
sustainability in addressing the oxidative stressors including
physical[malnutrition], chemical[toxicologic], biological[dis-ease],
psychological[chronic stress], and spiritual[religious reconciling]-- of
which 'HIV' non-specific, non-confirmatory marker positivity is no
reliable indicator of worthiness or wellness.

We are disbelievers in a '[SAME]SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' mindset having lead
for many to the unquestioned acceptance of the 'HIV=AIDS=DEATH' paradigm.
We endorse proportionate access to alternative health care for the 50%-2/3
of those 'HIV/AIDS' diagnosed which the HHS says are not in 'HIV'
Specialist Care and who may not choose to access due to their health care
philosophy and practise. We also endorse a model of competition within our
health care system to break up the current model of monopoly of
conventional, pharmaceutically-based medicine.



BEYOND FLAT EARTH MEDICINE

How popular consensus and the medical establishment have often stubbornly
clung to the wrong ideas, unable to think outside the box. When medically
'correct' wasn't always.



A Brief History of Mismanaged Epidemics
[Disease]---[Popular Consensus]---[Actual Cause]

Scurvy------Contagious---Malnutrition: Vitamin C deficiency

Beri-beri---Contagious---Malnutrition: Thiamin deficiency

Maternal Fever---Non-contagious---Contagious: Unsanitary doctor practices


Influenza---Bacteria---Virus

Pellagra----Contagious---Malnutrition: Niacin deficiency

SMON(1950s-70s, Japan)---New Virus---Iatrogenic: Pharmaceutically induced



In science as in the law, the affirmative theory bears the burden of proof
for establishing itself. Those who critique it's establishment in fact,
are not required to reprove or replace another theory of it's aetiology,
especially when immune dysfunction has a multi-factorially influenced set
of unrelated conditions, or according to Alternative Medicine, all
illness/wellness is on a continuum and the result of immune sufficiency or
deficiency.

Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ mode or
'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model or theory of illness which is
confirmed by the work of hundreds of AIDS Dissident Scientists, including
Nobel Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers
in their fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories of
diagnosis[PHILOSOPHY] from the alternative therapies of
treatment[PRACTISE]-- in how Alternative Medicine differentially diagnoses
the individual and treats using a holistic, multi-factorial or
'many-causes, many-courses' approache to illness. They treat the
underlying causes of symptoms, not diagnosing/treating diseases and
certainly not diagnosing/treating syndromes, which are a 'catch-all' of
redefined classifications or catagories of conditions. And therefore,
Alternative Medicine does not generally recognize conventional disease
classifications.

"For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun
substantives."

"There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease
conditions
[or states of dis-ease]."

Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Disease Dissident)

Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the
affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the 'HIV=AIDS'
hypothesis, often compare AIDS Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo
was a Dissident, the Flat Earthers were the mainstream scientific
establishment.

There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think.
Galileo was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of
Jupiter's moons, through his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are
traditionally called the "Galilean" moons, after their discoverer.)
Anyway, he offered to let an influential member of the Clergy look through
the telescope at these moons, so that said clergyman would see what
Galileo had seen. This pious man refused, saying that as long as he did
not look, his religious faith could remain intact.

Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical "church", regarding the HIV
theory; its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! :-) )

Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while
Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The
implication was that Seamen or Sailors engaged in 'buggary' were sexually
transmissing a 'bug.' Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by
the medical and scientific establishment until 1973, a decade later the
medical diagnosis of GRID-- Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described
in the literature.



AIDS DISSIDENT SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY ANALYSIS



what is hiv?

No laboratory has ever obtained an undisputed sample of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), despite countless attempts. Most
laboratories, clinics and medical corporations have come to accept
indirect signs, or 'markers', such as antibody reactions, proteins,
genetic fragments, 'virus-like' particles, enzymes - that could suggest a
virus but also other things - as proving the presence and existence of an
'HIV'.

If such a virus were ever isolated by standards applicable until the late
1970s, the expectations are that it would be a retrovirus - a concept of
viruses adopted in the early 1970s. The genetic code of a retrovirus would
work 'backwards' - 'retro' - transforming RNA to DNA. Most retroviruses
are known as harmless passenger viruses a part of all of endogenous or
naturally occuring genetic make-up. 'HIV' has never been found in
suficient quantities to kill T-Cells and in fact there is no concensus
even after 20+ years as to 'HIV's cytotoxic or cell killing mechanism. For
a decade, researchers thought cancer was caused by a retrovirus. Professor
Peter Duesberg, UC Berkeley, isolated the first retrovirus and is a Father
of Retrovirology says 'HIV' is a harmless passenger virus that does not
cause the syndrome known as 'AIDS.'

In 1984 some signs suggesting a possible new virus were detected in cell
cultures by the scientific teams of Frenchman Luc Montagnier in Paris, and
American Robert Gallo in Washington, who were trying to explain a single
cause for 'AIDS'. The French called their findings Lymphadenopathy
Associated Virus (LAV), the Americans called theirs Human T-cell
Lymphotrophic Virus III (HTLV-III). The US Government announced at a press
conference in 1984 that a new virus was "the probable cause of AIDS," yet
before any scientific papers inviting peer scrutiny were published. When
such papers appeared in Science some weeks later, a dispute erupted
between Montagnier and Gallo. Gallo was found guilty of scientific
misconduct by a Senate Ethics Committee, for misappropriating material and
photographs of 'virus- like' particles from the French. Because of the
financial stakes - Gallo and the US government applied for a patent for
tests for 'HIV' the day of the press conference - the matter was
eventually solved only by a closed meeting between the scientists which
produced an official history of events, and a meeting between the US and
French Presidents.

However, neither Gallo nor Montagnier ever managed to purify samples of
the virus they claimed to have detected. Many scientists believe that
without fulfiling this traditional primary requirement of virus isolation,
multiple confusions at the molecular biological level are inevitable over
what or whether anything has actually been found. To this day, primary
purification of 'HIV' has never been achieved. The last attempts,
published in 1997 in Virology, revealed proteins and genetic fragments
from microvesicles - sub-cell particles - but no virus.

hiv antibody tests

INDEX OF ARTICLES, PAPERS
http://www.healtoronto.com/hivtest.html


Over the years of the HIV/AIDS theory, different types of test have been
used to try to detect such a virus in patients. These have included (1)
antibody tests, which look for a reaction in a person's blood between
their natural antibodies and synthetic proteins said to belong to HIV, and
(2) Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or 'viral load' genetic tests, which
purport to use part of the virus' genetic code to detect its presence.

All these tests are indirect, or surrogate. They do not claim to detect
any whole virus. Rather, they use markers to infer whether a virus might
be present. Unfortunately for the accuracy of these tests, these same
markers can be found in a variety of non-HIV situations. No HIV test of
any kind has ever been validated against the one measure that is not
indirect - the gold standard: physical virus isolation. This is because
isolation of HIV by the previously conventional standards of viral
isolation has never been achieved, despite numerous attempts.

Of the antibody tests for HIV, there are two main types - called ELISA,
and Western Blot. Neither was designed especially for HIV, but are
examples of laboratory methodologies used in many investigations. Around
the world many companies market their versions of the ELISA and Western
Blot antibody tests for HIV.

However, the uncertain, unvalidated nature of these tests is reflected in
the product literature supplied by their manufacturers.

A typical example for the ELISA reads:

"At present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence
or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood." - Axsym
System, Abbott Laboratories

A typical example for the Western Blot reads:

"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." -
Epitope, Organon Teknika




Neither Isolation Nor Validation

Any scientist who declares that a genetic sequence, moreover
a genetic sequence arrived at by human concensus, represents
a naturally occuring virus, has compromised their scientifi integrity. To
further suggest that this genetic sequence represents a competent,
exogenous, sexually transmitted and indeed pathogenic retrovirus is to
enter the realms of pseudo-science. Without HIV isolation all is mere
speculation. Even if HIV were isolated and the proteins tested for by the
ELISA antibody test were actually proteins specific to HIV, an antibody
test would still not be accurate enough for determining actual viral
infection. Everyone tests HIV positive on ELISA if their serum is not
diluted by a factor of 400 because of non-specific antibodies which bind
to any proteins.


"Of course we looked for it [HIV]... We saw some particles but they did
not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses. ... I repeat we
did not purify."
~ Dr. Luc Montagnier, the "discoverer of HIV"
(see French transcript of quote from the interview
http://healtoronto.com/lmfrench.html , Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV?
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm
or video)



"No one believed we really had that many isolates... No one believed we
really meant that..."
~ Dr. Robert Gallo, also discovered "HIV"
(see Gallo Investigated http://healtoronto.com/galloindex.html)



===============================================

RETHINKING SOCALLED 'SAFE-SEX'
SLIDE EFFECTS AND CONDOMANIA [INDEX OF PAPERS]
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/safesex.htm


A LINK TO THREAD WITH OTHER ARTICLES, PAPERS ["CONDOMNATION"]
http://groups.msn.com/dissident-acti...domnation.msnw




INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY: [MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE AND A
SMALL BOOK ON THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE PRODUCED]


1) Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, yet are not selectively biased
under the PPVs or Positive Predictive Values formulary labeling gay men as
'at risk' for who they love. Prevention education programs focused on
testing and retesting of all gay men which 5% population represented about
40% of all 'HIV' tests given. If they heterosexuals are tested, their
results are more likely to be interpreted as cross-reactive or
indeterminant because they are not in a 'high risk' group, so even if they
would just as frequently test 'HIV' antibody positive they are not being
tested proportionately. The 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests do not
measure 'HIV' infection and with over 60 known cross-reactors, do not
establish probable cause to live and love in fear.

2) Semen may cause minor antigenic stimulation or even immune supression,
which also occurs, byt the way, in women who develop morning sickness upon
conception to allow furtilization of the egg. It has not been established
by Scientists as to the quantity or quality of semen that may be more or
less antigenic stimulation or immune suppressive and this deserves further
study. Human contact and certainly human physical and sexual intimacy is
never 'safe' by nature. Yet gay men have been having anal sex throughout
history, and most gay men who do practise anal sex are not testing 'HIV'
non-specific antibody positive, yet with the added stress upon an emerging
gay subculture and the widespread use of street drugs in the late 1970s,
and other health-style factors that are important in all illness/wellness
equations-- combined to contribute to aquired immune deficiencies among a
certain sub-set of gay men. Yet, all gay men were assumed 'at risk' by the
CDC in the 1980s because 'AIDS' was assumed to have a homosexual pathology
or sexual transmission, even though there were many known health-style
factors of the original sub-group of gay men, originally described as
'GRID'[Gay Related Immune Deficiency]. This, even though all of the CDC's
official 29 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those diagnosed 'HIV'
negative and all have well documented causes and treatments unrelated to
'HIV/AIDS.' KS is one of the original defining condition, originally
called the 'gay cancer' was first described in the literature in the 1800s
and is seen today among middle eastern men. Today, KS is rarely seen in
'AIDS' patients and remains confined to gay men diagnosed with 'AIDS'
though Gallo, the alleged 'co-discover' of the putative 'HIV' and other
mainstream researchers admit KS likely has been correlated to amyl
nitrites or "poppers" used by some gay men and another virus associated
with it, HHV-8.

3) Anal health and hygiene, colon hydrotherapy, colonics, fasting, diet
all are important illness preventives including reconsidering certain anal
sex practises, fisting or rough, "unsanitary" sex. This might include the
pull out method or accessing your partners general health while taking
steps to sustain your own general health. Anal retentive focus on "bugs"
or hypochondriacal sex-negativity are anathma to a holistic or
multi-factorial, 'many-cause, many-courses' wellness promotion strategy.
Where is the evidence that anal receptive partners or "bottoms" are the
gay men testing socalled positive and the anal insertive partners or
"tops" are the ones testing negative? This is the major impediment to the
statement by even some AIDS Dissidents who propose anal receptive sex,
without controlling for the amounts and quality of semen or seminal fluid
which might be inherrantly immune suppressive.

4) Latex condoms and chemically carcingen-containing lubes role in immune
suppression and the astronomical increase in anal cancer rates, from
allergic to immunologic and even death, particularly among gay men. These
products were never studied for internal (anal) use, were never approved
for such and indicate for *topical use only* on package inserts.

5) Many STDs are not alleged to be spread through semen or seminal fluid,
but sores and saliva. Condoms have not been shown effective in preventing
most common STDs. Even if one 'contracts' these bugs, approximately 80-90%
of those are said to be 'carriers' who do not develop chronic symptoms in
their lifetimes, clear it from their bodies naturally after a short course
of conventional antiboitic treatment or preferably through the more
prophylactic use of alternative, non-toxic immune enhancing therapies--
thus calling into question the significance of the bug-seed versus the
human host or organizms' role in immune sufficiency and sustainability.

"KellyJonLandis" <kjlandis@alumni.usc.edu> wrote...
WTF?!? I realize some may have difficulty accepting the existence of a
gay man who doesn't goosestep to official radical-left party line, but
I assure you I am one. That may be strange, but not nearly as strange
as someone like you who appears to doubt that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Call me homophobic if you wish. Perhaps I could be described as such,
as I truly am afraid to be around other gay men - not because they are
gay, but because I know they are almost certain to be infected with
HIV and gawd knows what other STDs, discovered and undiscovered. I
have absolutely nothing against gay sex, but I do have a serious
problem with dying from it.

Here is an illustration of what I'm talking about. Suppose back in
the 1970s gay men had been banned from donating blood because they had
such high rates of syphillis and gonnorhea. Then suppose the gay
activists made a fuss about this "discrimination," arguing that it was
unnecessary because new, accurate tests for syphillis and gonnorhea
had been developed. The ban was subsequently lifted and gays allowed
to donate. Then a few years later recipients of gay-donated blood
began dropping like flies from a mysterious illness, later to be
discovered to be a previously-undiscovered virus to be named HIV. It
just seemed impossible that this virus should be found in gay men,
as research discovered it was a MONKEY virus. Now please tell me
why you think it impossible that a penguin virus - or a zebra, panda
bear, or even octopus virus - won't make its way from the animal
kingdom into the gay community? Homophobic or not, the fact remains
that anal sex is a perfect mode of transmission for many infectious
agents, not just HIV. Or am I wrong and that political correctness
has won over nature?


You are such a dumbass. I already stated that the HIV-infection rate among
gay men is "thousands" (though perhaps "only" hundreds) of times higher
than the infection rate among heterosexual men. This is not "homophobia,"
this is a DOCUMENTED FACT. I then stated that the new tests are not 100%
accurate. This means that SOME tainted blood will slip through the
screening process, though to be fair infected blood from heterosexual
donors will also slip through, but at a far lower number of incidents than
infected blood from homosexual donors. Unable to dispute this logic, you
turn around and call into question the existence of HIV, or if you are
saying that HIV exists, you seem to doubt that it is harmful and thus
being infected with it should not disqualify anyone from donating blood
(this is what you're saying, isn't it?).

"Zim" <zim@irk.gov> wrote in message


Troll.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

Zim wrote:
phrase to get the attention of the reader.



Now let me rant a bit about the noise the gay community has been making
In some parts of the world that may be true.

or in any other community. Heterosexual drug users in rich
neighbourhoods and the
poor skidrow environment take lots of risks.

You are absolutely correct. Mad Cow disease is an excellent example.
Little
testing of beef is done and those infected that pass it on in blood
transfussions.


It is writing like this that confirms that this is not written by a
homosexual.

Zim wrote:
If you are a homosexual why would you use derogatory terms and writing
to express
yourself when polite and respectful language could be used?

Well, if you hang out with heterosexual society, there are plenty of
them
that carry a wide range of diseases, too, TB, STDs, and a host of other
diseases, it just depends which ones you hang out with.

Same with the homosexual community. Some carry diseases and some do
not.

In the 1970s syphillis and gonnorea were curable. Some strains may not
be
today. Many soldiers in the vietnam war had lots of VD in the 1970s and
they
weren't all homosexual. The Vietman environment produced some drug
resistant strains.

You are talking America. The rest of the world's homosexuals weren't
dropping dead until much later because they didn't have the money to
travel like Americans did and weren't yet exposed to the disease
except in Africa where it infected and affected everybody.


The mouth and vagina are just as good as any rectum.



In North America, it may be true that the HIV infections are higher
among
homosexuals than heterosexuals but this is partly contributed to by the
fact
that homosexuals can't date like heterosexuals at 13, 14 or 15 with a
steady
boyfriend they can bring home to their parents and the family setting
and develop
normal structure. Most homosexuals hide their sexuality until late
teens then
move away from home and start dating at a time when heterosexuals of the
same age
have had lots of sexual and social dating experience. My point being is
that
it is not as simplistic as you try to make it. In the 1970s there were
few, other than
political, organizations for homosexuls. AIDS changed all that and in
fact AIDS
enabled the rest of socity to talk about sex and its relationship to
disease just we
are doing here. Few if anyone in society talked about homosexuals or
gays but today
heterosexuals refer to them just like the refer to Italians, Germans and
other segments
of society. Things must be looked at in perspective.

I then stated that the new tests are not 100%

occupant wrote:
Not necessarily. I know a gay fellow who, like this writer is slightly
to the right of Attila the Hun and mimics every line they feed him.
Including ranting against "the activists" and "the gay agenda."

It's like watching a chicken vote for Col. Sanders.

B/

In article <10jn7l272ltgfc1@news.supernews.com>,
Brian Mailman <bmailman@sfo.com> wrote:
Zim started this thread with a crosspost between misc.health.aids
and alt.flame.faggots. That is enough information to judge him by.
He's an ingrown hair on the buttocks of humanity.

--
David Canzi For every scientific revolutionary there are 100,000 cranks.

"occupant" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message
Not true. Anal sex is riskier for many things. However, the
majority of the people in the world who have anal sex are
heterosexual not homosexual. However the percentage of
heterosexuals and homosexuals having anal sex differ in that a
higher percentage of gay *men* have anal sex than straight people.
Lesbians have a lower rate of anal sex than straight people do.

Zim is a troll. Ignore him.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

You said: < Now let me rant a bit about the noise
the gay community has been making over the prohibition on men who've
had sex
with other men from donating blood.>
------------------------------

So, while any seropositive is already excluded from donating blood
either being Gay or not, you are definitively talking about
seronegative Gays that want to donate blood and not being allowed to.

Let alone the doubts I have that this subject might comply with the
netiquette of this forum, I just follow the example of others that
seem not to having such doubts and so,
I think:

First: One should know the REAL CONTEXT of this issue not to easily be
tempted to lateralizing the main discussion with subjective
projections on the base of fantasies and ghosts of each one's
sexuality or politic wing incline.

Second: As we don't know the REAL CONTEXT, at least, how does the
Lawmaking Body define such Gayety from such Gays that can't donate
such Blood?

Third: *IF* the Lawmaking Body defines Gayety as *a chronic and
compulsive anal sperm reception* I thing IMHO that the law is not that
bad designed because there are dozens of active illnesses and, 'soit
dizant', dormant illnesses associated with that behavior that are not
individually scanned and having NO CURE mainly when co-associated or
cross reacting with other antigens which that Gayety definition
predispose much above any other sexual behaviors.
As these co associations KILL besides all the trivial attempted cures,
"HIV" was the providential alibi that integrated all those uncured
"bugs" in a single mirage (retroviral-like particles), from the worst
science that quickly saw how to brain wash the anguished crowds with
its simple chameleonic turning into a new Religion promising a new
Messiah: The Salvation in the form of a new vaccine for The new evil,
AIDS.
Meanwhile, with the invention of "HIV", the holopathic medical
establishment could finally hide its incompetence in an artificial and
unproved unified cause much more inconsistent than the old Lucifer
promissing Heaven.

Forth: One should not through out the baby with the bath water as well
as not confounding being an AIDS DISSIDENT with being a promoter of
the "Russian roulette's suicide".

Fifth: Let alone this small subset in between homosexuals, the
discussion about who could or couldn't donate its blood should never
be taken, IMO anyhow, on the base of the sexual promiscuity as it is
ridiculous to subdivide Gays or the Straights so called alternative
into subclasses. But I wonder why people that *eventually* don't even
blink when tying to hide the most profits and incomes they can from
IRS, be so concern and apparently guilty(?)about hiding, as well, its
sexual promiscuity when donating blood, for instance, to a close
relative.

Sixth: Actually, the Establishment would be much more coherent and
paranoiac free suspects demanding a quick H.L.B. Bradford-Blood-Test
to every blood donor instead of trying provocatively the feed back of
the Lobby Gay in order to solve the sexual inidentity of magistrates
majority.

Karl

-----------------------

"Zim" <zim@irk.gov> wrote in message news:<7Lr_c.5965$Vl5.5440@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net>...

"Karl" <carlos.boni@netcabo.pt> wrote...
Yes, that is what I'm talking about. The first person who replied argued
that HIV is a harmless virus that has no connection to AIDS, therefore
seropositive gays or anyone else should be allowed to donate blood. I
argued that the HIV virus percolated for years among the gay community
before being detected, being spread through the deadly combination of
extreme promiscuity and anal sex, therefore there is no reason to believe
an undiscovered virus is not now percolating the same way through that
community. Someone else suggested that as I am homosexual, I should
accept the party line that promiscuity and anal sex are not conducive
to disease transmission, and that I am "homophobic" because I don't
believe that. I'm sorry that some of you simply cannot accept that
modern ideals of political correctness do not suddenly void the laws
of nature. It would be nice if anal sex really was no different from
vaginal sex and posed no more of a risk of disease transmission, but
it just isn't the case. You all can bury your heads in the sand like
ostriches and pretend everything is fine, but you WILL catch HIV and
DIE.


I don't think we're talking about any "law" here, we are talking about
the policies of the privately-run blood banks. Their policy does not
attempt to define "Gayety" of donors, it simply states that any male
who has had sex - protected or unprotected - with another male since
1977 (?) is ineligible to donate. I personally think that 27 years is
way too long, perhaps 10 years would be better as just about every
conceivable virus would have manifested in that time period. But that
is their policy and it, along with the latest DNA tests, have reduced
the incidence of transfusion-related infections to nearly zero. What
bugs me about the gay activists wishing to overturn this ban is that
they do not seem concerned about public health, their real motive is
to abolish what they perceive as discrimination against their group.
I'm sorry, but while they want to stick their heads in the sand and
pretend everything is fine, the stark reality is that HALF of all HIV
infections are among gay males (when only 2.8% should be statistically),
and that gay males are HUNDREDS of times more likely to be infected
than heterosexual males. Politically incorrect, of course, but true.

The (ir)relevance of being Gay in the HIV/AIDS context (answer to Kim)



Kim, try to understand the feign contradiction: As average, almost everybody
auto nicknamed Gay can't be, from a strict psychoanalytic point of view, so
much gay like that, in the sense of someone feeling a true daily happiness.
People need, defensively, to associate positive energies to themselves that,
much probably, they don't have, at least, that they can't, or think they can
't, experiment, find, feel, etc. The same goes for the others trying to
label names to the next neighbor on the base of appearances.
Notwithstanding, those people that use to die from AIDS are essentially sad,
not gay at all. Very similarly a man that needs to give himself airs of a
stereotyped man is the one that has doubts about his own masculinity trying
to mimic, for instance, a deep or low-pitched voice. Just as a metaphor,
you only need a Flag to gather a Nation when their citizens' majority are
everything but it, while descendents from many other homelands (any
similarity with USA in this matter is pure coincidence J ).

After all, what I want to highlight is the fact that what general population
doesn't want to see is the MOLAR SUFFERING of the so proclaimed Gays,
preferring expiate their "unconventional" sexuality, instead.

This little semantic problem around the conjugated pair Sad/Gay exposes the
EMBLEMATIC BLINDNESS around HIV/AIDS because, any one by their own reasons,
apparently NEITHER AIDS DISSIDENTS NOR STATO QUO AIDS CRAP DEFENDERS make a
meaningful effort to Kick sexual options out of the AIDS scenery (still a
Freudian inheritance?).

Actually, *the average homosexual people that will probably die prematurely*
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE but rather AS THEY ARE "HIV" antibody positive from the
mere result of an unspecific test, BTW WITH ALL THE AUTO-CONTRADITION
TOWARDS HIV ON ITS OWN LABELS (cf.: Axsym System, Abbott Laboratories), as I
was saying they are, in spite of all the appearances, either very depressed
people, either very lonely people, either marginalized people, and because
of that, or (if you prefer) as like that, they can't, averagely, maintain
several relationships or steady jobs, and so, before anything else, they
suffer from a relative poverty and poverty is the main vector of death upon
AIDS in agreement with WHO. To compensate, those persons I'm referring,
always from a statistical point of view, either smoke miles of cigarettes,
or drink kiloliters of alcohol, or have very poor sleep, or take thousands
of antidepressants, thousands of benzodiazepines, or use and abuse from
recreational drugs, sniffing cocaine and heroine while not IV, ecstasy, or
combining all these things together.

Additionally, *those who die from AIDS under the society's expiation of
their homosexuality*, don't eat properly, don't have general hygienic habits
owing to the let it go corollary postures of their hopelessness and use to
incur in other anti hygienic practices that use to reach sado-masochist
traumatic sodomies, fisting, etc.

As they miss the energizer physical contact existing in a typical family and
don't feel at ease to recreate a non conventional one, mainly owing to the
irreducible abounding Puritanism, they are much more prone to chronic
psychological stress that leads to psyco somatosis also known as
somatopsycosis.

Now, to crown up all those handicaps, some of them avoidable, an astounding
number among these people can't help aggravating their problem having to
surrender to some kind of blackmail that forces them to try *also*, Anti
RetroViral (ARV) prescription poisons.

The gap, has been hiding from those homosexuals the old fact that all those
behaviors they maintain, DE PER SE, definitively are lowering the CD4
counts, very much below the conventional border of AIDS definitions,
without no need of any *exogenous* "HIV".

In fact, most of them carry lots of infections not only, but *also* acquired
from sexual unprotected experiences and that is another aggravating
condition to lower and lower their CD4 counts. Condoms here can make some
qualitative difference in spite of their relative toxicity because microbes
are mutating every day during their battles against Medicine's conventional
methodologies that are not being enough against them.

Coming back to the tiny subset of Homosexuals in risk for AIDS, their
condition is not that new as all the historical relates don't deny.

What is new is the BIG DENSITY of their risky behaviors in big cities that
seemed to give the forged alert for the existence of a deadly virus. This
last attitude is merely a 'déjà vus' because either Scurvy, Beriberi,
Pellagra and Cloquinol syndrome (at least), where all initially supposed to
be caused by microbes until the first three have to surrender to vitamins
and the last to the toxicity of Cloquinol approved drug that was causing
thousands of deaths among Japanese people whose families in protest have
received righteous indemnification from Cloquinol sponsors .

As a mater of fact, psychological stress, social isolation, depression,
systemic failures of several organs, mal nutrition, traumatic anal
experiences, all 'DE PER SE', can lower dramatically the CD4 counts to those
levels without even being seropositive because all those events link
directly with meaningful rises of CORTISOL in the blood, 'a fortiori' when
those factors act synergistically altogether.

BTW, the simple fact that someone discovers his seropositivity is a BIG step
back towards any health investment in the future, and much people believe
that the chronic stress that it leads to, might be the first cause of death
among those doubly and triply ostracized populations (enough speaking about
*homosexuals* that are *seropositives* plus the fact that they might be, for
instance, *blacks*).

I believe the establishment knows that and knows also that the HIV/AIDS
(mis)diagnostic is, like voodoo, a woeful sentence of death outside court
trials. That's, in part, why, in the shadow of that guilt, there have been
so many AIDS organizations in USA as so many new AIDS cases per year as Dave
Rashnick denounced in it's proper time (one AIDS Organization per one new
AIDS case per year (!)).



When you say: «You all can bury your heads in the sand likeostriches and
pretend everything is fine, but you WILL catch HIV andDIE.» You
better try to think a little bit because I promise you I don't let you die
in the middle of your reasoning. Have you ever thought about the fact that
the so called HIV never came to USA or Europe during Colonization Age but
exactly before the last colons move out Africa definitively in 1974? Don't
you find this a little strange under the stubborn AIDS mainstream assumption
that ties seropositivity to an infectious vector? It's obvious that Africans
where already seropositives before 1974, before 1964, 1954 and so on.
Seropositivity always existed, at least in Uganda. You want to know exactly
why?I'm going to try to summarize the superb work of Vladimir Koliadin in
this matter and I'm going to round some numbers without loosing significance
so you the better understand.Using the historical of CDC surveys, Koliadin
decided to study the 9000 seronegatives among 10000 Ugandian natives aged
between 13 and 44 with an obvious remainder of 1000 seropositives; and do
you know what did he find?He found that mortality taxes among seronegtives
in Uganda are almost the same as in USA seronegatives in the same age
interval .Do you know what this means? KI believe you can find the
answer for yourself because it is just like 2+2=4. That means that
seropositivity cannot be a new health condition among Ugandans, otherwise
ignoring the 1000 seropositives the remainder 9000 were as "healthy" as USA
homologous.How can this be possible as Uganda and all other African
countries showed always such high mortality taxes in those age intervals
comparing to USA? So we must conclude that seropositivity always existed in
Uganda and other African countries, never being transmitted to the foreign
colonists during almost six centuries just because it is, obviously, NOT
CONTAGIOUS. Quod erat demonstrandum.You can see the all story
in:http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vkafrica.html Yours truly, Karl













Kim, try to understand the feign contradiction: As average, almost everybody
auto nicknamed Gay can't be, from a strict psychoanalytic point of view, so
much gay like that, in the sense of someone feeling a true daily happiness.
People need, defensively, to associate positive energies to themselves that,
much probably, they don't have, at least, that they can't, or think they can
't, experiment, find, feel, etc. The same goes for the others trying to
label names to the next neighbor on the base of appearances.
Notwithstanding, those people that use to die from AIDS are essentially sad,
not gay at all. Very similarly a man that needs to give himself airs of a
stereotyped man is the one that has doubts about his own masculinity trying
to mimic, for instance, a deep or low-pitched voice. Just as a metaphor,
you only need a Flag to gather a Nation when their citizens' majority are
everything but it, while descendents from many other homelands (any
similarity with USA in this matter is pure coincidence J ).

After all, what I want to highlight is the fact that what general population
doesn't want to see is the MOLAR SUFFERING of the so proclaimed Gays,
preferring expiate their "unconventional" sexuality, instead.

This little semantic problem around the conjugated pair Sad/Gay exposes the
EMBLEMATIC BLINDNESS around HIV/AIDS because, any one by their own reasons,
apparently NEITHER AIDS DISSIDENTS NOR STATO QUO AIDS CRAP DEFENDERS make a
meaningful effort to Kick sexual options out of the AIDS scenery (still a
Freudian inheritance?).

Actually, *the average homosexual people that will probably die prematurely*
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE but rather AS THEY ARE "HIV" antibody positive from the
mere result of an unspecific test, BTW WITH ALL THE AUTO-CONTRADITION
TOWARDS HIV ON ITS OWN LABELS (cf.: Axsym System, Abbott Laboratories), as I
was saying they are, in spite of all the appearances, either very depressed
people, either very lonely people, either marginalized people, and because
of that, or (if you prefer) as like that, they can't, averagely, maintain
several relationships or steady jobs, and so, before anything else, they
suffer from a relative poverty and poverty is the main vector of death upon
AIDS in agreement with WHO. To compensate, those persons I'm referring,
always from a statistical point of view, either smoke miles of cigarettes,
or drink kiloliters of alcohol, or have very poor sleep, or take thousands
of antidepressants, thousands of benzodiazepines, or use and abuse from
recreational drugs, sniffing cocaine and heroine while not IV, ecstasy, or
combining all these things together.

Additionally, *those who die from AIDS under the society's expiation of
their homosexuality*, don't eat properly, don't have general hygienic habits
owing to the let it go corollary postures of their hopelessness and use to
incur in other anti hygienic practices that use to reach sado-masochist
traumatic sodomies, fisting, etc.

As they miss the energizer physical contact existing in a typical family and
don't feel at ease to recreate a non conventional one, mainly owing to the
irreducible abounding Puritanism, they are much more prone to chronic
psychological stress that leads to psyco somatosis also known as
somatopsycosis.

Now, to crown up all those handicaps, some of them avoidable, an astounding
number among these people can't help aggravating their problem having to
surrender to some kind of blackmail that forces them to try *also*, Anti
RetroViral (ARV) prescription poisons.

The gap, has been hiding from those homosexuals the old fact that all those
behaviors they maintain, DE PER SE, definitively are lowering the CD4
counts, very much below the conventional border of AIDS definitions,
without no need of any *exogenous* "HIV".

In fact, most of them carry lots of infections not only, but *also* acquired
from sexual unprotected experiences and that is another aggravating
condition to lower and lower their CD4 counts. Condoms here can make some
qualitative difference in spite of their relative toxicity because microbes
are mutating every day during their battles against Medicine's conventional
methodologies that are not being enough against them.

Coming back to the tiny subset of Homosexuals in risk for AIDS, their
condition is not that new as all the historical relates don't deny.

What is new is the BIG DENSITY of their risky behaviors in big cities that
seemed to give the forged alert for the existence of a deadly virus. This
last attitude is merely a 'déjà vus' because either Scurvy, Beriberi,
Pellagra and Cloquinol syndrome (at least), where all initially supposed to
be caused by microbes until the first three have to surrender to vitamins
and the last to the toxicity of Cloquinol approved drug that was causing
thousands of deaths among Japanese people whose families in protest have
received righteous indemnification from Cloquinol sponsors .

As a mater of fact, psychological stress, social isolation, depression,
systemic failures of several organs, mal nutrition, traumatic anal
experiences, all 'DE PER SE', can lower dramatically the CD4 counts to those
levels without even being seropositive because all those events link
directly with meaningful rises of CORTISOL in the blood, 'a fortiori' when
those factors act synergistically altogether.

BTW, the simple fact that someone discovers his seropositivity is a BIG step
back towards any health investment in the future, and much people believe
that the chronic stress that it leads to, might be the first cause of death
among those doubly and triply ostracized populations (enough speaking about
*homosexuals* that are *seropositives* plus the fact that they might be, for
instance, *blacks*).

I believe the establishment knows that and knows also that the HIV/AIDS
(mis)diagnostic is, like voodoo, a woeful sentence of death outside court
trials. That's, in part, why, in the shadow of that guilt, there have been
so many AIDS organizations in USA as so many new AIDS cases per year as Dave
Rashnick denounced in it's proper time (one AIDS Organization per one new
AIDS case per year (!)).




When you say: «You all can bury your heads in the sand likeostriches and
pretend everything is fine, but you WILL catch HIV andDIE.» You
better try to think a little bit because I promise you I don't let you die
in the middle of your reasoning. Have you ever thought about the fact that
the so called HIV never came to USA or Europe during Colonization Age but
exactly before the last colons move out Africa definitively in 1974? Don't
you find this a little strange under the stubborn AIDS mainstream assumption
that ties seropositivity to an infectious vector? It's obvious that Africans
where already seropositives before 1974, before 1964, 1954 and so on.
Seropositivity always existed, at least in Uganda. You want to know exactly
why?I'm going to try to summarize the superb work of Vladimir Koliadin in
this matter and I'm going to round some numbers without loosing significance
so you the better understand.Using the historical of CDC surveys, Koliadin
decided to study the 9000 seronegatives among 10000 Ugandian natives aged
between 13 and 44 with an obvious remainder of 1000 seropositives; and do
you know what did he find?He found that mortality taxes among seronegtives
in Uganda are almost the same as in USA seronegatives in the same age
interval : o .Do you know what this means? KI believe you can find the
answer for yourself because it is just like 2+2=4. That means that
seropositivity cannot be a new health condition among Ugandans, otherwise
ignoring the 1000 seropositives the remainder 9000 were as "healthy" as USA
homologous.How can this be possible as Uganda and all other African
countries showed always such high mortality taxes in those age intervals
comparing to USA? So we must conclude that seropositivity always existed in
Uganda and other African countries, never being transmitted to the foreign
colonists during almost six centuries just because it is, obviously, NOT
CONTAGIOUS. Quod erat demonstrandum.You can see the all story
in:http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vkafrica.html Yours truly, Karl











"Zim" <zim@irk.gov> wrote in message
news:1E0%c.8203$Wv5.7409@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 03:42:53 +0100, "karl" <carlos.boni@netcabo.pt>
wrote:

snip
LOL. Just as long as my dentist isn't a homophobe! Cause then I'd
worry that he was actually gay. Data show that people who get all
strung up about gay men are usually just wannabe cocksuckers.

George M. Carter

**
Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with
homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-445.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013,
USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively
heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual
individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n =
35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to
groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W.
Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually
explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual,
and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were
monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss
& M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile
circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only
the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male
homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the
homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Hi Carter!
I share with you your good sense of humor but not your disguised
ignorance, I'm sorry!
Now, please be patient: *MOLAR* is an adjective with two connotations
in English. One has in fact to do with Dentistry (the one you choose
carelessly), but the second is inspired in gram molecule unity from
Physics and, if you want, it can easily be replaced by the adjective
*STATISTIC*.
The idea is not mine and is not new. Several years ago I read an essay
dated 1968, "The Anti Oedipus, capitalism and schizophrenia", where
its co-authors Felix Guatari and Gilles Deleuse used to refer several
times the term *MOLAR* (statistical groupal characteristics of a
certain population in study) in implicit opposition to *MOLECULAR*
(individual characteristics of each member of the Group).
BTW, the main differences between MOLECULAR and MOLAR have to do with
the existence of different Isotopes from the same Element when talking
about Atoms and Isomery when talking about properly speaking
molecules.In both cases the word MOLAR has also to do with one MOLE
which contains 6.023*10^23 particles.
When focusing an endless group off diseased people, from a mere
scientific point of view, individual suffering is more or less
subjective, yet using the adjective MOLAR to qualify the noun
SUFFERING among that group, it will result in an attempt to "quantify"
the unquantifiable (we must agree), but still it's an attempt as much
as science might recognize it objectively.
On the other hand, the decreed vision upon AIDS is the same
black-and-white Manichaeism comparing to average vision over
SEXUALITY. I explain:

a) AIDS --> Mainstream concept: Either you have HIV or you have
nothing to do with AIDS. Reappraised concept: there are several
degrees of AIDS that (eventually) turn detectable the so called "HIV".
b) SEXUALITY --> Mainstream concept: Either you are heterosexual or
you are a Gay, while diversely, Sexuality is much more colorful and
creative subject like a well conducted symphony. In fact and somehow
(while knowing it or not), we are all heterosexuals, homosexuals,
voyeurs, exibicionists, pedophiles, sadomasochists, etc. etc. but also
(perhaps), footbolsexuals, IRCsexuals, republicansexuals,
democraticsexuals, etc. etc.

My conviction:
The mainstream paradigm upon AIDS can only change while a shifted
vision over SEXUALITY will arise.

In your chosen reference the last paragraph concludes:
« Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the
homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. »

My opinion:
It sounds like the discovery of gunpowder almost in the 21st century!

Don't tell me you had to wait for 1996 to conclude what was already
known, at least, ever since the "Three Essays on the Theory of
Sexuality" by Sigmund Freud and all the subsequent half a century work
of hundreds or even thousands of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts (!)

BTW It's also been peer reviewed (I think since the very early History
engraved stones ) that ANY HEALTHY MAN being or not homosexual can
SUFFER ERECTION AND ORGASM when either a woman or another man (chossen
from between all the sexuality's spectral bands), decide sticking
their fingers by mere scientific curiosity up and down the poor guy's
ass. I'm neither homophobic nor "heterophobic", but DO ME A FAVOR,
don't stick yours up mine... I've already done my annual check up
routine for the Prostate and that's enough.

Karl


GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<o670k0di6p3h8n1dle4mppn1ljonb4hnh4@4ax.com>. ..

"karl" <carlos.boni@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:413fc337$0$4779$a729d347@news.telepac.pt...
Actually the Gay male subgroup of the American Population scores above the
nations median income line by a significant percentage. Thus your argument
is absurd on it's face. Next the stereotype that Gay males are not
successful in building and maintaining relationships has also been shown to
just that a 'stereotype that is promulgated not by the actions of gay men
but rather by the homophobic society in which they live and the nature of
male sexuality unmediated by female influences.

A study that came out in 1999 or 2000 studied gay male couples, straight
couples, and lesbian couples in relation to a matrix of factors that
contribute to the successful maintenance of long term loving relationships
and the rankings in order of those couples showing the most successful
relationship traits was as follows, Gay male couples, Lesbian couples,
Straight couples so again it seems your argument is false on yet another of
it's claims.

(snip rantings and ravings in such convoluted English as to be almost
impossible to parse any meaningful points from)

Gary Stein

You said:
«Actually the Gay male subgroup of the American Population scores
above the
nations median income line by a significant percentage. Thus your
argument
is absurd on it's face.»

But Garry, we both must be talking about different things in this
matter by, at least, two broad reasons:
--First, being a foreigner, I didn't know that homosexual practice in
USA was such an exhaustive monitored thing as everybody in almost any
place in the World is hiding it to avoid Ostracism and Anathema,
except if you are rich and powerful enough not to give a damn about
it—and so those scores you refer are justified and very well justified
for it is enough that a couple of gay millionaires are being included
in your statistics and you win (I know enough about what statistics
can be, believe me…). Otherwise, your presumption is in check until
you prove what you have said with scientific *not fudged* documents
and not just blah blah, I'm sorry.

--Second: The worst Poverty is the cultural and spiritual poverty--
Ignorance and Hopelessness--, if you prefer, to which the WHO for mere
politically correct policies ought not to dare touching though it's
almost implicit. As a matter of fact, without money it is very
difficult to be cultured, well informed, or get rid from any
uneducated status while you can have rich people that cultivate
ignorance and immaturity as money can be, as well, a two-edged weapon
… On the other hand, without a Spiritual and Metaphysical
interpretation of Life it is very difficult to realize the malefices
of chronic anger, chronic fear, arrogance, intolerance, ingratitude,
etc. Unfortunately, those qualities are not very emblematic among PWA,
it's a fact.
However, deep down, Ignorance is, for sure, one of the main causes of
death in the World. At least, if we need any prove here there are
statistics that warrant that graduate people live much longer
comparing to the non licentiates, it's another fact.

It's funny how mainstream AIDS defenders try to see so many homophobes
among those who just dare rethinking the AIDS-"GAY" slippery
connection as if any Lobby from any Gay male subgroup might have
trusted any attorney's letter to the AIDS DOGMA's parsons.

I've not a stereotyped vision over male homosexuality as I've met rich
and poor homosexuals, cultured and illiterate ones, masculine and
effeminate, fat and slim, intelligent and narrow minded, etc. None
homosexual until today called me a homophobic, so I feel you are
projecting over me either your truly guilt or someone else's.

When you write:

« A study that came out in 1999 or 2000 studied gay male couples,
straight
couples, and lesbian couples in relation to a matrix of factors that
contribute to the successful maintenance of long term loving
relationships
and the rankings in order of those couples showing the most successful
relationship traits was as follows, Gay male couples, Lesbian couples,
Straight couples so again it seems your argument is false on yet
another of
it's claims. »

Gary, now you shot your own foot!
You are being FALLACIOUS either you've noted or not.
The fact that "Gay male couples" might be the champs of loving
relationships is rather predictable just by common intuition. BUT what
have these gays to do with the gays' risk group for AIDS?
Don't you see that the *Gays' Risk Group* don't include the "Gay male
couples" you refer?
Is it so difficult to understand that *ALL the male homosexuals* are
NOT in risk except a very tiny share among them which urge to define
to avoid these falsehoods among distracted people?

I have chosen the subject of the (ir)relevance of Gays in AIDS to
remind that either we discuss Science or we discuss Politics, because
they are not miscible fluids at all. In fact, when you emphasize a
risk Group called Gays either you define it or you drop it. The
problem is that it seams that you don't touch the concept apparently
because it is not politically correct, preferring the ambiguity where
you can always be right. How convenient! Do you see?
So the AIDS Establishment is still pointing the Gays as the naïf
points the Sun and sees the finger.

Karl


"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<7sm0d.227$ZP.89@trnddc05>...

"Karl" <carlos.boni@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:90a1daf0.0409112052.4054989c@posting.google.c om...
The inclusion of the very rich in the income statistics of course skews the
number higher after all one Bill Gates increases the entire nations income
by a few dollars per person. How ever that works both ways there are high
income people in the straight community and the gay community, are you
claiming that there are more high income earners in the gay community?
Because unless that is your argument nothing you say above changes the core
of the fact that your comment about gay's being economically underprivileged
is just not true in the US.
What ever AIDS-"GAY" might mean I challenge you to find any comment of mine
that shows me saying AIDS is a GAY only issue. That is of course not true
HIV when looked at globally is of course a majority heterosexual epidemic
and one where poverty and status has huge implications to ones ability to
access treatment. I don't believe you can find many postings to MHA that
would say otherwise expect from the dissident side you seem to be supporting
though your use of English is so mangled it is difficult to know what
exactly it is that you are trying to say.
Of course it does though granted there risk would be lower then someone
having more diverse and unsafe sexual contacts.

Anyone having sex with someone who's is also having sex with others is at
risk, yes the level of risk is highly complex and nuanced but that does not
alter the fact that some risk is involved. I know many men who thought they
were in truly monogamous relationships and thus did not practice safe sex
only to find out when they tested positive that there partner had been
unfaithful so yes even committed couples are taking a risk if they have
unprotected sex. Again the level of that risk is lower then it would be for
someone engaging in higher risk activities but the point is that the risk is
not 0 as you are trying to claim.

Gary Stein

In article <YL11d.1456$bj2.227@trnddc08>,
Gary Stein <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote:
Where Karl quotes you above, you talked about a median, not an average.
A few billionaires, or even a few thousand of them, would have little
effect on a median. Were you comparing two medians, or were you
comparing an average to a median, or were you using the word median
loosely to mean an average?

--
David Canzi Religion is taught to children as soon as they
can talk. Logic is taught in university.

You said:
« What ever AIDS-"GAY" might mean I challenge you to find any comment
of mine
that shows me saying AIDS is a GAY only issue »

Gary, I congratulate you from not being so naïf in AIDS-"Gay" linkage
as others AIDS' main stream defenders; but still, I'm not in the mood
to feed the Public Collection in favor of Homosexual's binding in AID
syndrome anymore.
I think I've been very clear in this matter and, sometimes, IMO you
are apparently continuing to use the term Gay in different acceptions
from those who, eventually, matter in AIDS.
The Logic rules are to be respected before anything else in any debate
or even chat.
To state my point I must say again that, from the fact that among PWA
sometimes there are people that admit having practiced sodomy as a
homosexual common practice doesn't allow us to congregate all the
Homosexuals in the World with the label of belonging to any risk group
for AIDS. It's simply silly, except if you want to hide the iatrogenic
immunosuppressant effect of *common pharmacological drugs* that PWA--
NOT "GAYS" NECESSARILY—use and abuse, in the past or still now.
The hiper valorization of Homosexuality in AIDS is absolutely
arbitrary just to hide that those PWA also take or have taken lots of
auto medicated anti depressants, lots of auto medicated antibiotics,
lots auto medicated Benzodiazepines, lots of cigarettes, alcohol,
recreational drugs, etc., etc.
As the great majority in between PWA does smoke (either tobacco,
heroin or marijuana), why don't you assume that, from the simple fact
that someone smokes, is in danger for AIDS? Why not the existence of
the smokers risk group for AIDS? Why not? What's the difference?
Now you understand the role of the intermediary HIV in this
imbroglio—the need to hide iatrogenicity in AIDS not to depress
pharmacological drug's sells.
BTW, Atlanta was the place in the World where AIDS has been first
detected also being the City in the World with the biggest consume per
capita of home pharmacological drugs…at least in 1973. Doesn't this
mean anything to you?

You also said:
« I don't believe you can find many postings to MHA that
would say otherwise expect from the dissident side you seem to be
supporting »

Gary, I know you are not making an accusation, but still, what's the
problem of someone supporting somehow the Dissident movement in AIDS?
Do you know any Medical Theory or Physical Theory, and so on, that are
(or were) not a typical dissidence? Don't you agree with Hegel's
Science definition as a sequence involving a thesis an antithesis and
the synthesis between the formers?
Dissidence is a Virtue not a Vice, for God sake. Making ‘tabua rasa'
from what Dissidents are considering important in AIDS debate just
because they are trying to change the AIDS-one-sole-virus paradigm
must be seen as an unnatural thing because you need that contestation
if you want to know what AIDS is; otherwise you bloody well let them
speak only in between them and stick on and on with the paranoid
theory of one sole virus one sole cause-of-AIDS.
The World experience have given us the idea that Unified Theories are
the very last stage in Science and not the very first clumsy step;
BTW, in this case, it's enough thinking about the theory of Unified
Field in Physics being, even before Newton, Maxwell, Einstein,
Hawkins, etc. no more than a vague utopia. Official AIDS' leaders had
30 years to understand what AIDS Rethinkers were pointing out since
the beginning, i.e., AIDS IS NOT CAUSED BY HIV, and so, the goal of
AIDS cure must change from a mere act of virus hunting déjà vus. The
more time passing the more is the conviction of Rethinkers about the
necessity of an urgent epistemological cut over AIDS ARV
pseudo-therapies.
Official AIDS' leaders had 30 years to show us one only cure from
CLASSICAL AIDS cases; but no; from those, (shame on the stato quo),
nobody is alive to tell us about any ARV miracle; not one. Everybody
died with clinical conditions aggravated by iatrogenic effects of ARV.
So, what is the back up of the AIDS' Establishment for except the Big
Pharma? Is that what you call Democracy?
Sorry! I almost forgot that the AIDS crap validity started exactly in
the moment where the entire population have been deceived by a
Republican promise with Ronald Reagan in 1984.
All the ideas must be welcome in m.h.a. because PWA are still dying
while we are just chattering. The problem is finding an independent
*referee* to end up with the Big Pharm - Big sins around the false
identity between AIDS and SEROPOSITIVITY.
Science is not a Fundamentalism and, IN SCIENCE, in the facde of the
facts, the scientist must be psychologically prepared to ought to say
NO when the day after he have said YES, because this is the ‘sine qua
non' condition to be a Scientist: Humbleness, Tolerance and
Detachment.
The big misconception has been calling scientists to those mere
bureaucrats in AIDS command.
The problem, if one might call it, is the fact that only "Peacocks"
can reach the AIDS' leadership from where the wiser scientists are
being relegated or having to wait months and years until scientific
reviews reconsider the primacy of their work.
I support the idea that PWA must have the free access to other much
cheaper alternatives of *expanding their lives*. As a matter of fact
AIDS mainstream leaders are monopolizing HAART state of the art
therapies without EVEN a single one volunteer group of control. Facing
that feigned Ethical excuses--witch is BTW a rather terrific
hypocrisy--, anyone just mildly inteligent quickly understands that
SOMETHING is being hidden from the populations, including from the
very Health Magistrates in the World—the simple fact that in this
story of the AIDS' bug the King is also naked.
‘My fight' could never be the racist and homophobe Hitler's Mein Kumph
source of inspiration that pointed ethnic and sexual minorities to
blame while AIDS panic have been wisely spread over the public opinion
in the early 80ies. I'm also struggling for the officialization and
depenalization of private AIDS attempts of synergic cure experiences
(obviously in between certain consensual rules) where are included non
patentable Xenobiotics, Vitamin and Mineral-therapy, Herbal Chinese
Therapy, Acupuncture, etc.

Karl


"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<YL11d.1456$bj2.227@trnddc08>...

"David Canzi -- non-mailable address" <dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca>
wrote in message news:ci5uaq$6os$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
Actually I was talking about the median, though to illustrate how Karl's
points were wrong I switched to talking about average to show that even the
average would be consistent across subgroups due to the simple fact that
there are rich people in both groups. But I do apologize for the mixed use
the two are as you note entirely different mathematical constructs. And as
you say the median numbers are note effected by either the very poor or the
very rich segments of the populations in question.

Gary Stein