Test positive, don't get AIDS. Seems to be the story
for more and more women.

Alex

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


Dennis D. Webb, S.C.I.N. 09881
142 North Mosley, 2nd floor
Wichita, KS 67202
(316) 264-3500


IN THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS
Civil Department


Kim Marie BANNON, )
Plaintiff )
vs. ) Case No.
)
CALYPTE BIOMEDICAL )
CORPORATION; and ROCHE )
DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, )
Defendants )
)

PETITION

(Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60)


COMES NOW the plaintiff, Kim Bannon, by her counsel Dennis
D. Webb, and for her cause of action, states:

1. Defendant Calypte Biomedical Corporation-Delaware (hereinafter
"CBC") is a corporation duly registered to do business in the state of
California, and may be served by its resident agent John J. Dipietro,
1440 Fourth Street, Berkley, CA 94710.

2. Defendant Roche Diagnostics Corporation (hereinafter "Roche")
is a corporation registered to do business in Kansas and may be
served with process at its resident agent, National Registered Agents
of Kansas, Inc., 2101 SW 21st Street, Topeka, KS 66604.

3. Plaintiff Kim Bannon (hereinafter "Bannon") is a resident of Wichita,
Sedgwick County, Kansas and all relevant acts occurred within said
jurisdiction.

4. In April of 1992, during the course of routine medical diagnostic
testing, Bannon was diagnosed by Dr. Donna Sweet of the Kansas
University School of Medicine, Wichita, Kansas, as carrying the
"Human Immunodeficiency Virus" referred to as HIV, and widely
purported to be the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
or AIDS.

5. The testing procedure used to make such a diagnosis included
the "Recombigen EIA Screen-HIV-1 EIA" and the "Cambridge
Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot Kit," both manufactured by defendant
CBC, which included a protocol for administration of the test and
criteria for assessing the results of said kits.

6. Dr. Sweet described the results of the CBC testing as "indisputable"
and "classic," and told Bannon she would develop the full spectrum of
AIDS within five to seven years and die soon thereafter.

7. In subsequent testing from 1996 to 2003 undertaken at the
direction of Dr. Sweet, Bannon was administered an AMPLICOR
HIV-1 Monitor Test Kit manufactured by defendant Roche, which
included a protocol and criteria for assessing the results of said kits;
all of said tests purportedly confirming the diagnosis of HIV infection.

8. Likewise, the Roche testing was described by Sweet as confirmation
of the HIV diagnosis, and her prognosis of the full spectrum of AIDS
and death within five to seven years.

9. In the context of the medical services and testing described, Plaintiff
was a consumer within the meaning of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq. (hereinafter KCPA).

10. In the context of the medical services and testing described,
Defendants CBC and Roche were suppliers of consumer goods
or services within the meaning of the KCPA.

11. Plaintiff discovered on April 18, 2002 that the science,
methodology, and assumptions relied upon by defendants CBC
and Roche as the basis for their respective testing and basis for
plaintiff's diagnosis was faulty, without sound medical and/or
scientific confirmation, and an otherwise flawed procedure.

12. Now more than twelve years after the "diagnosis" provided
by defendants testing procedures, plaintiff is healthy, asymptomatic,
and wholly free of any sequela of HIV or AIDS.

13. CBC and Roche engaged in deceptive acts and practices within
the meaning of KCPA, K.S.A. 50-626 as follows:
a. [50-626(b)(1)(A)] making representations knowingly or with
reason to know that the goods and/or services included approvals,
characteristics, uses and benefits which they did not have;
b. [50-626(b)(1)(B)] making representations knowingly or with
reason to know that the supplier had certain approval or status
which it did not have;
c. [50-626(b)(1)(D)] making representations knowingly or with
reason to know that the goods and/or services were of a standard
which was materially different from the representation;
d. [50-626(b)(1)(G)] making representations knowingly or with
reason to know that the goods and/or services had uses, benefits
or characteristics which had been substantiated when, in fact, they
had no such benefits;
e. [50-626(b)(2)] the willful use in oral or written representations
of exaggeration, falsehoods, innuendo, or ambiguity as to a material
fact; and
f. [50-626(b)(3)] the willful failure to state a material fact or the
willful concealment, suppression or omission of a material fact.


14. Defendants CBC and Roche engaged in unconscionable
acts and practices within the meaning of the K.S.A. 50-627 as
follows:
a. [50-627(b)(1)] taking advantage of the consumer's inability
to protect her interests resulting from an inability to understand
the language of the relevant "agreement."
b. [50-627(b)(6)] making misleading statements of opinion on
which plaintiff relied to her detriment; and
c. [50-627(b)(7)] excluded or attempted to exclude the implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, to wit: that the product
or service was an accurate measure for the diagnosis of HIV/AIDS.

15. As a consequence of the unlawful denials by CBC and Roche
of the warranty claims, plaintiff has incurred losses, including but not
limited to: loss of income.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

a. civil penalties of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for each
violation of the KCPA against each of the defendants;

b. injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from further
representations asserting the suitability of the subject test
products/services; and

c. pecuniary damages suffered as a consequence of the
misdiagnosis including loss of wage/earnings;

d. non-pecuniary damages including mental anguish,
pain and suffering, shame and humiliation resulting
from the defendants' unlawful acts;

d. attorney fees pursuant to the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act; together with their costs, and such other
and further relief as the Court shall deem just and equitable.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dennis D. Webb, #09881
VERIFICATION
STATE OF KANSAS )
)ss:
COUNTY OF SEDGWICK )

"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message

HIV is a virus. AIDS is a disease of poverty - directly caused by the HI
Virus. The truth is that, with the drugs you so dispise, together with a
sensible lifestyle and a little bit of luck, no-one should ever have to get
AIDS any more.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

Moira de Swardt wrote:



Unfortunately it is nonsense like this that feeds the denialst cause. I
wish otherwise seemly intelligent people would stop making such
ridiculous statements.

"Moira de Swardt" <firstnameds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news4WdnUQHB6iKKxzdRVn-vg@is.co.za...
There are certainly attempts being made to eliminate the virus and that is
the really critical factor, but success does not seem to be just round the
corner. Therefore, control is also a vital factor at this stage.

Drugs and a sensible lifestyle may well keep those who are infected alive,
but the "sensible lifestyle" is not something that can be controlled on 24
hour, 364 days a year, basis and those who are living apparently healthy
lives, through drug treatment and a reasonable diet, are the source of
further infections, just as much as those who are not receiving drug
treatment and whose diet is not what it should be.

The reliance on drugs to keep the virus under control is a time bomb,
because there will come a time, probably in the life of each recipient of
the drugs, when the drugs become unavailable and the more that the infection
is spread by those receiving the drugs, the worse the eventual impact will
be.

I would not suggest that there should be no ARV treatment scheme implemented
and implemented in the most effective way, but prevention of the spread of
infection is the crucial factor and the concept that having sex, whenever
and wherever, as an iinailiable human right, is not a good idea. Education
is said to be the answer, but within a very short time after VD was brought
to Europe from the Americas, everyone knew what the dangers of casual sex
were, and yet that had no effect in stopping the spread of the infection and
despite the proclaimed success of the Ugandan education programme, I think
that a degree of reservation, rather than elation, is needed in that
context.

Mark Richardson

"Jordan" <JJ@jordan.com> wrote in message
Sweetie, you cut the rest of my statement. I am most certainly NOT in
sympathy with the denialists. The truth is that HIV is a chronic, treatable
and manageable condition. In an ideal world there will be no need for
anyone to get AIDS.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

"Moira de Swardt" <firstnameds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news4WdnUQHB6iKKxzdRVn-vg@is.co.za...
Except that not only poverty stricken people get AIDS! Unless you
intimate that those that are better off get AIDS from "socialising" with
poor people?

conciliator wrote:

Yes it is such a nonsense isn't it.

"conciliator" <avoidspam@home.com> wrote in message
Currently HIV positive people who are able to afford antiretroviral drugs
and fortunate enough to be able to tolerate them well and disciplined enough
to take them, will probably *never* acquire AIDS.

This was, of course, not the case earlier when medications were not as
advanced as at present. At the rate at which new medications are being
developed this is a trend which will continue to provide good news.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

"Moira de Swardt" <firstnameds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:2dWdnXQK27iNKx_dRVn-ig@is.co.za...
Sorry Moira but I will have to disagree with you there, even in the West/US
were access to treatment is widespread (though sadly not universal) there
continues to be AIDS deaths both in the untreated and the treated
populations. HIV is not yet a truly chronic, treatable and manageable
condition.

While life spans have been enormously increased through treatment they are
not full lifespans. Some studies say 20 years others say longer but that is
far from being a chronic non-fatal illness. Sadly HIV is still a fatal
disease in the majority of cases it is just taking much longer for those
fatalities to occur.

Gary Stein

Moira de Swardt wrote:


What's with the poverty angle? Are you really trying to sell the idea
that if poverty suddenly vanishes so will AIDS or at least HIV infections?

Mark Richardson wrote:

VD from the Americas? I always thought it came back with the Crusaders from
the Middle East. So was that just Vatican propaganda?

As for the relationship between the availability of drugs and treatments
either creating or destroying caution, I remember a time when syphillis was
nothing to fear too greatly, because if you picked it up somewhere you just
went for a course of antibiotics, and it went away. There's probably some
danger of that kind of thinking if too much is claimed for ARVs.

Then again, nineteenth century whoremongers seemed to simply accept that
once the suppurating sores erupted it was just some kind of unavoidable
consequence of life. It was just unfortunate that the diseases then
required all sorts of painful and ineffective treatments. It didn't stop
the spread of the disease.

--

Slow Eddy

AIDS= A NEW NAME FOR POVERTY AND ASSOCIATED DISEASES


Every epidemic disease is now renamed 'AIDS' under the Bangui Definition.

Mortalities (non natural) in S.A. remain at the same 2.2% P.A. that they
were BEFORE AIDS. Either every other disease in the region vanished
overnight or 'AIDS' is simply the old diseases with a new name. You
decide.

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

In Africa, the continent supposedly being decimated by
HIV, HIV tests are rarely ever done, so there the idea
that all patients with AIDS are infected with HIV is
based entirely on supposition.

At a WHO conference in the Central African Republic in 1985, U.S. Centers
for Disease Control (CDC) introduced the "Bangui Definition" of AIDS in
Africa.

The CDC officials later explained, "The definition was reached by
consensus, based mostly on the delegates' experience in treating AIDS
patients. It has proven a useful tool in determining the
extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, especially in areas where no
testing is available.

It's major components were prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight
loss of 10% or greater, and prolonged diarrhea..."(McCormick, 1996). Where
AIDS is diagnosed clinically, large numbers of AIDS patients test negative
for HIV. As no HIV testing is required in Africa we have no idea how many
AIDS cases there are HIV positive (De ####, 1991; Gilks, 1991;
Widy-Wirski, 1988).

_______

Other conditions common in underprivileged and
impoverished communities that are known to cause false
positive results are tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and leprosy (Burke,
1993; Challakeree, 1993; Johnson, 1998; Kashala, 1994; MacKenzie,1992;
Meyer, 1987). In fact, these are the primary health threats in Africa;
several million cases of tuberculosis and malaria are reported in Africa
each year - more than all the AIDS cases reported in Africa since 1982
(WHO, 1998)*.

HIV Testing Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities --- United States, 1999

POVERTY = AIDS

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome (AIDS) in the United States disproportionately affect
racial/ethnic minority populations, particularly blacks and Hispanics (1).


Of the 774,467 AIDS cases reported to CDC during June 1981--December 2000
(2), blacks and Hispanics accounted for 56% of cases, although they
represented 25% of the U.S. population during this period. In 2000, the
incidence of adult and adolescent AIDS cases per 100,000 population was
74.2 for blacks, 30.4 for Hispanics, and 7.9 for whites (2). HIV
counseling and testing services potentially can reduce the risk for
infection with HIV and provide referrals to HIV-infected persons for
medical care. An estimated 300,000 HIV-infected persons in the United
States may be unaware of their HIV serostatus (3). In 2001, CDC introduced
the Serostatus Approach to Fighting the Epidemic (SAFE) (3), which focuses
on increasing the number of high-risk and infected persons who know their
serostatus and helps infected persons receive and maintain appropriate
medical care and reduce their risk for transmitting infection. CDC
analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to
determine the rate at which racial/ethnic minorities are getting tested
for HIV. This report describes the result of the analysis, which indicates
that minority populations are being tested for HIV infection at a high
rate; however, a substantial number of persons at risk for HIV have not
been tested. Prevention programs should continue to develop innovative
methods for counseling and testing at-risk persons.



http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5047a3.htm

"Mark Richardson" <mwmarho@iafrica.com> wrote in message

Only partially true. I have explained before that someone on antiretroviral
treatment has a very low viral load and is therefore very unlikely to pass
the virus on to anyone regardless of whether condoms are used or otherwise.
In addition, there is much evidence to suggest that people who know their
HIV status regardless of whether it is positive or negative have a greater
tendency towards practising safer sex than those who don't. In this vein,
people who know they are HIV positive, are taking the ARV treatment properly
and living a "sensible lifestyle" are extremely likely to make condom use
part of that "sensible lifestyle".

Why should the drugs become unavailable? On the contrary, each year new
drugs are entering the market, and new research provides new hope for
controlling, if not curing HIV. Vaccine trials for eventual prevention of
all sorts are underway in many places, as are treatment trials. Researchers
said hopefully that a vaccine would be developed by some date in the past,
and while this has not happened, there is still hope, just as there is still
hope that vaccines and cures will be found for other human ailments.

I would agree with this. Part of the problem is that fear campaigns are
notorious for their inability to change behaviour. In order to change
behaviour we, the educationalists, have to show that there is hope for the
future.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

"Jordan" <JJ@jordan.com> wrote in message
No. I stated that HIV is a manageable condition. It costs money to manage
it. The majority of HIV infections are brought about by the socio-economic
conditions in which people live. Changing those, and certainly creating
greater power over their own destinies for the most hard hit of all, namely
women, would certainly reduce the number of new infections.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

Moira de Swardt wrote:


You mean like shanty towns, poor sanitation and cholera go together?

I still do not understand where you are coming from on this. Are you
trying to say that because of their poverty these people have less
education and fewer choices over under which circumstances they indulge
in sexual activity?

"Moira de Swardt" <firstnameds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:gNSdnfXudeFNtx7d4p2dnA@is.co.za...
Drugs will become unavailable because they have not been devlivered to local
distribution points. It is happening all the time now and there are
continuous complaints of patients, currently undegoing a course of
treatment, pitching up at the clinic to find that their medication is not
available. If there was a decent organisation and decent supervision of the
health services then one could be reasonably confident that the treatment
would be available when required. Unfortunately this is not the case and
with the current attacks being planned and mounted on the medical
profession, by the government, the situation is hardly likely to improve.

Mark Richardson

"Jordan" <JJ@jordan.com> wrote in message
Yes and no. I was chatting to my doctor last night about the various
vaccinations I will be needing to have this week. As you know I work in the
field of HIV and AIDS. I travel all over Africa, and am planning to visit
countries where a yellow fever vaccination is required. I am also planning
to take part in HIV vaccine trials. So it was with this link in mind that I
actually asked about the cholera vaccine. His response was that I should
never drink tap water in countries where it might be suspect unless I boil
it first. Therein lies the link between the two concepts. Rich and poor
people can both get the same diseases if they do the same things. However,
the temptation for me to use water that is not boiled is not high as I am
not the one who has to fetch it, carry it, boil it, cool it and serve it. I
just buy a bottle of water when I'm in Kenya or Uganda or Mocambique.

There are multiple factors involved in the transmission of HIV.

The problems include migrant labour where the husband is away, often without
providing for his wife who then has to barter sex for necessities, he in the
meantime is having sex with all and sundry in the city because he is
"lonely" (I'm a tad cynical about this one, although I pretend to be
terribly understanding when I talk to men). He then becomes HIV positive.
He returns to his (in this case) faithful HIV negative wife who doesn't want
to have unprotected sex with him because she knows he's had fifteen
girlfriends in the city. He then beats her. She goes to the church where
the male pastor looks shocked and insists that she may only deny her husband
for prayer and then only for a time. Etc. etc. etc.

Then one looks at lobola - the wife has been paid for. If she doesn't play
ball the husband is entitled to send her home. As her parents have already
spent the lobola they don't want her back. Then there are the cultural
practices that promote HIV transmission, only some of which are relevant to
South Africa, but which include male adult circumcision schools, female
circumcision, wife inheritance, polygamy, dry sex and probably several
others that I can't think of right now.

Then one has the education messages which give the idea that *nice* people
abstain from sex, less *nice* people are faithful and the least *nice*
people use condoms. The implication is that really horrible people have
HIV. As none of us have ever voluntarily (????) had sex with horrible
people all our sexual partners are obviously HIV negative, as we are
ourselves. I loathe the message that goes with ABC.

There are many more problems. Where there is poverty there is often a
tendency to blot out misery with substance abuse, usually alcohol in South
Africa, and that is a risk factor because of lowered responsibility. Where
there is poverty there is a lowered education level.

Importantly, where there is poverty, the access to ARVs is severely limited,
so the people who are having unprotected sex are having it at whatever viral
load they happen to have. Where people are on ARVs the viral load is
usually undetectable, which severely limits the possibility of infecting
others.

Whole theses have been written on this, but I hope I have drawn an adequate
reply to your query.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 03:38:22 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
<firstnameds@wol.co.za> wrote:

snip...
I agree. Poverty IS a major factor both in the spread and the rate of
progression. Poverty also means lack of nutrition which accelerates
disease progression, for example, and increases susceptibility to
opportunistic infections.

Many women and men (and children) wind up in the sex trade due to
severe economic conditions. This increases spread. Many others wind up
using drugs or selling them.

Does this mean HIV does not affect the more affluent? Of course not.
And eliminating poverty doesn't end the HIV/AIDS pandemic. But
reducing povery addresses a fundamental strut in its spread and the
concomitant suffering it creates.

George M. Carter

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:30:50 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

Of course not. However, I would agree with Poverty Accelerates
Progression to AIDS among HIV+ individuals.

Yes. But a poor person who does not have HIV does not develop AIDS.

George M. Carter