- Another fellow HIV gift giver in count
- Posted by Martin
Here's another HIVAIDS case from Australia.
This time it appears the accused has a letter from his doctor stating
"the possibility of [his] infecting someone is virtually nil" because
he had an undetectable viral load for three or four years.
HIV is entirely a matter of belief. Can someone who believes they
don't have HIV or that they are not infectious be found guilty of
deliberately infecting someone else with it?
<http://www.theage.com.au/national/accused-believed-he-could-not-pass-on-hiv-20080723-3jzg.html>:
----- Begin Quote -----
A MAN accused of deliberately infecting two men with HIV believed he
was not infectious when he had unprotected sex and was careful not to
endanger others, a County Court jury heard yesterday.
Michael John Neal, 49, of Coburg, has pleaded not guilty in the County
Court to 34 charges including deliberately infecting a person with
HIV, attempting to infect a person with HIV, and rape. Neal allegedly
infected two men, and attempted to infect another 12 between 2001 and
2006.
In his closing address Neal's barrister, George Georgiou, told the
jury his client was not trying to infect others with HIV because he
genuinely believed he was not infectious. Mr Georgiou said that Neal
had believed his undetectable viral load meant he was not a risk of
infecting others.
"What did Mr Neal tell the police in the interview? This: 'I actually
got a letter from Nic Medland, who actually states the possibility of
my infecting someone is virtually nil because I am undetectable and
have been for three or four years'," he said.
"(Neal) has that advice from his treating doctor and his state of mind
is very likely to have been influenced by the advice he received from
his doctor
a doctor who specialised in HIV treatment."
He said that Neal had also demonstrated care and concern for a partner
with whom he had unprotected sex, driving him to the doctors and
helping him get post-exposure medication.
"Did Mr Neal sit back and do nothing, hoping
there would be another
person infected with HIV? No
He showed concern. He showed care for
(the man). He told (him) about (post-exposure) medication and
took
(him) to the doctor's," Mr Georgiou said.
The trial continues.
----- End Quote -----
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
4,940 days and counting...
- Posted by Death
"Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message
I changed HIV to TB, and it still reads the same to me.
Yes, if you expose someone to a dis-ease you are guilty
of passing on that infection.
- Posted by Martin
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:42:01 -0500, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:
Now change TB to flu.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
4,940 days and counting...
- Posted by Death
"Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message
news:554.1216853148.20080723@hiv-poz.co.uk...
http://www.rense.com/general66/hits.htm
- Posted by Martin
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:45:45 +0100, Martin <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk>
wrote:
Let's compare the UK's flu and HIV statistics
<http://www.avert.org/statsyr.htm>: approximately 500 HIV deaths and
4,000 new cases of the killer virus diagnosed each year.
<http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/281003flu.html>:
3,000 to 4,000 deaths per year attributed to flu.
Flu kills up to eight times more people a year in the UK than HIV does
and is extremely contagious.
Why are people who pass on HIV through sex considered criminals, but
people who pass on the more deadly flu aren't?
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
4,942 days and counting...
- Posted by Death
"Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message
news:555.1217006021.20080725@hiv-poz.co.uk...
As I said, they are guilty of passing on that infection.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...2Fecnflu16.xml
- Posted by Martin
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:54:00 -0500, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:
Following that logic, anyone who has a virus should stay at home.
According to an article printed in Positive Nation magazine last year,
the one and only time genetic evidence was used in a UK HIV
transmission case it resulted in a not guilty verdict.
<http://www.positivenation.co.uk/issue130/regulars/news/news130.htm>:
----- Begin Quote -----
In the ten cases in England and Wales where an HIV GBH conviction has
been successful, the prosecution has not had to prove transmission but
has relied on a guilty plea, he said.
And in one case where the defendant pleaded not guilty, the
prosecution tried to use genetic evidence but the defendant was found
not guilty.
----- End Quote -----
The last time I was with my HIVAIDS doctor, one of his assistants
entered the room to discuss another patient. She carried a small
tissue which she used to continually wipe her nose, and appeared to
have a severe cold or flu. On that day she shouldn't have been around
patients who had a weakened immune system.
To me, it demonstrated that even those who work most closely with
HIVers on a daily basis don't really believe the lie they're
preaching.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
4,944 days and counting...
- Posted by Death
"Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message
Yes, I don't see that being as bad as jail
- Posted by Martin
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:48:49 -0500, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:
Unfortunately, if everyone who had, or suspected they had, a virus
stayed at home everything would grind to a halt.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
4,945 days and counting...
