October 09, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/...mment-23639866

USA Today on Issue of HIV Screening

Our view on AIDS prevention: Lift stigma from HIV screening.Voluntary,
routine tests would detect those infected but don't know it. For most
of the 1980s, a diagnosis of AIDS was a virtual death sentence. People
suspected of having the incurable disease were shunned, fired from jobs
or driven from homes. Many avoided getting tested for fear that their
status would be revealed.

The progress since then has been remarkable. New medications keep the
HIV virus in check so that patients who are diagnosed early can extend
their lives by 25 years, according to a Harvard Medical School study.
Public attitudes have softened.

But that progress has exposed a new problem - and opportunity. Far
too often, the disease isn't discovered as quickly as it could be,
endangering those people as well as others they might infect. As many
as 1.2 million Americans are HIV-positive, and an additional 40,000 are
infected each year.

Making HIV screening as routine as tests for high blood pressure would
address the problem. New guidelines from the federal Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention urge providers to offer regular, routine
- but voluntary - testing for everyone 13 to 64. (Read the Opposing
view.)

The CDC also wants states to reconsider laws that deter testing. Some
31 states require specific informed consent, and 23 demand extensive
pretest counseling. Those outdated laws were written for a time when
little was known about AIDS.

Some civil liberties and AIDS advocacy groups worry that testing could
become mandatory and compromise patient confidentiality, but that is a
concern with all medical records and can be controlled.

The benefits of wider testing far outweigh the risks.

As many as 300,000 people with HIV don't know they have it. Their own
health is in jeopardy, and they unwittingly transmit the disease to
others. People who don't know they carry HIV account for up to 70% of
new infections. When they do become aware of their status, they take
steps to avoid infecting others - a two-thirds reduction in risky
sexual behavior.

Further, the screening of all pregnant women, which started in 1995,
decreased the number of children who contracted AIDS via their mothers
from a peak of 945 in 1992 to 48 in 2004.

Because HIV can be diagnosed before symptoms develop, finding more
infections gets patients into treatment faster, slows the spread of
AIDS and saves lives. The widespread screening that so dramatically
lowered the AIDS rate in babies can do the same for adults.

Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, October 09, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial,
USA TODAY editorial

Comments:

Perhaps you can enlighten me re: the supposed value of conducting an
"antibody" test which merely indicates a post-viral contact to an
ubiquitous, harmless, passenger retrovirus. If 300,000 people have HIV
and DON'T know it, perhaps you can enlighten us as to HOW YOU know it.

The only way that a person who demonstrates "antibodies" to a prior HIV
infection is at risk is by taking the chain terminator AZT which has
killed countless innocent people who would be alive and well today.

Let's see, we have a harmless retrovirus which was, and never has been,
scientifically proven to cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, is
a supposed "Slow Virus" that is supposedly spread by sexual contact and
infected blood and is able to CAUSE over 40 unique and separate disease
states in its hapless victims.

Nice try, but the truth is that AIDS is confined to male homosexuals
and IV drug users. It is not caused by a harmless retrovirus but rather
through the continuous biochemical insult to the immune system by such
"recreational drugs" as alkyl nitrites, cocaine, heroin, meth, and the
depressive effects on the immune system by years and years of ingestion
of massive quantities of antibiotics, antivirals, and antifungals used
by homosexuals to ward off sexually transmitted diseases.

De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the
monumental 25 year scam by the homosexual lobby in their attempt to
de-stigmatize themselves within society,...and doing it with our tax
dollars.

Posted by: Doc | Oct 9, 2006 5:41:52 PM


Opposing view: Don't remove safeguards

Required consent, counseling aren't barriers to testing for HIV.
By Rose Saxe

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is right to want more
people to get tested for HIV. But eliminating specific consent and
pretest counseling, as the CDC recommends, would remove safeguards
guaranteeing that testing stays voluntary and informed.

It's not surprising that some doctors and health care workers are
welcoming what they see as time-saving measures. But testing people
without informed consent doesn't ensure that people with HIV get the
care they need. Studies have shown that patients who are tested without
consent are less likely to get necessary follow-up care.

Without pretest prevention counseling, we also lose a critical
opportunity to educate. The reason people aren't getting tested is not
consent requirements or even stigma about testing; it's because people
still don't understand HIV. A recent survey found that 22% of Americans
wrongly believe that you can get HIV from sharing a glass of water. And
25 years into the epidemic, people continue to lose jobs and housing
because of prejudice. Can we really afford to abandon this chance to
help people understand HIV?

The new recommendations also raise privacy concerns. Virtually every
state now collects the names of those who test positive. If the
government is going to collect names and deeply personal information,
people tested deserve to know that this information is being collected
and how it will be used. (Read USA TODAY's view.)

Early in the epidemic, our government ignored AIDS until it was
confronted by persistent protests by gay people. As the demographic of
the disease shifts to include more women and people of color, why are
we abandoning those safeguards? And why is the government so heavily
focused on promoting testing, while continuing to fund misleading sex
education and refusing to adequately support proven programs, such as
needle exchange, that reduce the transmission of HIV in the first
place?

Written consent and counseling need not be barriers to HIV testing.
Everyone wins when people are able to make informed decisions to
protect their health.

Rose Saxe is a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union
AIDS Project.

Posted at 12:20 AM/ET, October 08, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial,
USA TODAY editorial |

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/...ng_view_d.html

On 9 Oct 2006 22:09:49 -0700, "jdach" <drdach@drdach.com> wrote:

snip...
There you go. The people who enjoy being oppressors--the bigots and
homophobes--ENJOY the stigma they place on groups they can feel free
to despise.

It's curious that humans are so weak and spineless that they need to
have such enemies. The fundy christians knew that going after Jews and
Blacks was bad but everybody can hate fags. That's still "OK".

In Iraq, now, new hate arises because one is born Sunni or Shia.

In Yugoslavia, Serb against Croat, etc.

Hutu against Tutsi.

Out of nowhere, bloodshed and hate arise...but when there is peace,
there are people like Dach and "death/diablo" in whom the growth of
prejudice and hatred fester. They are the puppets, the tools of the
powerful who wish to sow discord to retain their sinecure of power.

It's deranged and shows how little progress evolution has made in our
species.

George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:

reply from drdach:

Nice polemic. Keep up the good work.

regards from www.drdach

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
My advice would be to get a nice cheese to go with that whine.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:59:27 -0500, " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

You underscore the point elegantly if horrifically, my dear.

I do hope you find healing. But you will die with that feeble, ancient
ache of hate since you cling so fiercely to it.

I'd much rather be queer than have to live in your squalid, dismal
world.

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

The homosexual lobby? Please. the small but vocal group to which the
author refers is not representative of the greater gay population. Besides,
those that lobby in the name of AIDS - the true AIDS lovers - are the
pharmaceutical companies and 'public health' establishment who without
HIV/AIDS wouldn't have the globetrotting lifestyle to which they are
accustomed.

These self-important 'do-gooders' who just want to 'help people' are the
ones to whom you should be directing your outrage.



"jdach" <drdach@drdach.com> wrote in message
news:1160456989.473150.85320@k70g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

HIV antibody testing and Western blot testing have never been approved
by the FDA as a "GOLD STANDARD" to determine if indeed a person is
actually infected with "HIV".
You can read this on the manufacturer's labels in the packaging. Why is
the CDC recommending that 300,000,000 US citizens take a test that can
err over 71% of the time when persons who are tested outside of risk
groups? They claim that there are 250,000 people with HIV who don't
know it, because they are not sick. So they are recommending that ALL
of us be tested, even though less than one person out of 1,000 will be
positive! Think of all the money they will make testing 1,000 people
for nothing!

The total figure of HIV positives has not gone up in 20 years! In fact,
it has fallen from 1.5 million in 1985 now down to about 900,000 in
2006, or even less.
There are 65 reasons why HIV tests can produce a false positive, and
even the CDC candidly admits that almost half of the HIV positive
results are false. If you don't believe this, look at the yearly
percentage of HIV positive tests, then divide that figure into 300
million, then look at the "estimates" the CDC states here of people
with HIV infection. The number is usually about 50% of what the
percentage would dictate. You can do this for every year of CDC
surveilance.
If you really want to understand what is going in with HIV/AID$ visit
this site:
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com You can also find help for HIV
positive people through the links. It's time we called the "science"
behind HIV/AID$ into question and started treating people for the real
diseases they suffer from. In Africa, it's mostly malnutrition,
parasitic infection, poluted water supplies and poor sanitation.
HIV/AID$ has been a 250 BILLION dollar rip off that has resulted in
poisoning 400,000 americans alone with toxic drugs.

On 31 Oct 2006 22:11:32 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:

That's misinformation.
http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/L...t/Q143691.html

If this IS indeed misinformation, can you provide a package from ANY
HIV ELISA test kit that claims: "This test PROVES that the individual
being tested IS INFECTED with the Human Immuno Virus (HIV) ???They may
be approved by the FDA for diagnosis purposes, it would hardly be
feasible to market them if they were not, but these test kits are
careful to make the claim that they are NOT-NOT-NOT PROOF of HIV
infection. Why? Because they do NOT prove a person is infected with
HIV, AND they usually instruct the user to conduct further testing
before making a diagnosis. As I said, there is NO GOLD STANDARD for HIV
testing in ANY form. Show me ONE package label that makes this claim.
But why worry about the HIV test anyway, when HIV is obviously a fraud
and can NOT possibly be the cause of AIDS. Now that the Lancet study
released August 5th of this year is out and we know that HAART is a
failure, the AID$ industry is taking in water faster than the Titanic.
Visit our site: www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com to learn the UGLY UGLY
truth about this deadly scam that has resulted in mass genocide.
400,000 Americans are dead because of Gallo's fraud? We demand justice!
If you want to debate HIV testing go to this site and see the facts.
http://www.helpforhiv.com
It's time for honesty to return to medical health, and for every honest
medical health care worker to reclaim their credibility and objective.
STOP the HIV lie NOW!

Truth PLEASE! wrote:
Can YOU provide a package from ANY other ELISA assay for ANY other
infection that states:
"This test PROVES that the individual being tested IS INFECTED with
Infection X "???

You display a silly naivety about what HIV results mean, and what all
test results mean. All the tests do is confirm the presence of
antibodies, which is information taken into account by the clinician
who interprets the clinical diagnosis taking into account the results
of tests like these and other results that are confirmatory.

"Truth PLEASE!" <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
Is it possible that the test could be negative?
Why then would any test claim that it will PROVE
the individual being tested IS INFECTED?

DavidT wrote:
Would you like to meet a friend of mine? His name is Dr. Rodney
Richards and he developed the Abbott test kit most commonly used. He
can explain to you why these tests don't work. (you will see his name
referrenced on the packaging) He might know. He made them after Abbott
purchased Gallo's patent to develop the test. Now do you think I am
displaying a "silly naivety?" Why don't you take his word for it?

Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things
that can cause "HIV antibody paositive FALSE RESULTS. We have proof
that 2 tests from the SAME person done by the SAME lab have come back
with 2 (two) different results. This happens every day to thousands of
people. HIV testing is a scam.Visit the site:
http://www.helpforhiv.com
But what difference does it make? HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS anyway!

On 3 Nov 2006 17:20:37 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:

snip
1. HIV antibody tests have a high degree of specificity and
sensitivity. They are pretty damned accurate, especially contrasted to
other diagnostic tests (e.g., syphilis).

2. They are followed up by viral load tests and the clinical reality
of declining CD4 counts.

3. False positive or false negative results DO happen; that doesn't
not mean HIV does not exist or cause AIDS.

4. See the following URL for more information debunking the notions
regarding cross reaction (which yes, can happen, as with many tests,
but not nearly with the scope claimed above).

http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/

There's another excellent one I'll have to dig up--was that yours,
Bennett?

George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:
Nobody here but us conspiracy theorists/rethinkers.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...9469928015850c

I was aware of the 9/11 conspiracy theories but Bill Koenig's "Eye to
Eye" is a new one for me.

Hurricane Katrina was God's retribution for the Gaza withdrawal?

Chris Noble

Chris Noble wrote:
Chris: seems that way. It has happened EVERY time. I think Keonig
documented 48 out of 48 times. I'll take those odds in Vegas on a 3 to
one bet.

GMCarter wrote:
..

linked via assay where over 70 things can cause the test to detect
enzymes. There is documented proof that the sam lab, with the same
blood sample has produced two different results.


There is some correlation between CD4 counts and viral load, but both
have been seen to have NO CORRELATION in many AIDS clinical studies. In
fact, the use of ana nukes and PIs themselves effect these numbers more
than AIDS related diseases. The claims of CD4 and viral load counts
related to actual clinical AIDS progression are now discounted by the
AID$ industy's own admission.
No, there are 10 scientific reasons why HIV can NOT be the cause of
AIDS, without even beginning to talk about why the test is bogus. Both
the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, and HIV testing each have their own set of
bogus scientific failures. Like Dum and Dummer.

Visit this site and try to debunk the 10 reasons. the will continue to
stand.
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com

junk science.
http://www.helpforhiv.com

Death wrote:
Death, I am not sure I understand your question. Of course most people
who take the HIV test will test negative. At random, only about .05%
will test positive. (1 out of 200 people roughly) The issue is what
about those .05%? These people will be put through tramatic changes,
uncertainty, and even medications that are expensive and dangerous. It
is here that the accuracy of the test is important. With over 70-90% of
the people testing false positive, and the HIV=AIDS=DEATH propaganda
pressing on their minds, this is a quack science fear tactic that is
deceptive and to blame for over 400,000 deaths by AZT. The new drugs
are less toxic, but still not showing any long-term benefit. (Lancet,
aug. 5, 2006.)

Now the CDC is recommending that 300 million Americans (all of us)
subscribe to this bogus test. That is the issue. Did this answer your
question?

Truth PLEASE! wrote:
So let's get this straight. You believe a) that hurricanes in the US
are God's retribution for what is happening in Israel and b) HIV has
not been proven to cause AIDS.

Your attempt to portray yourself as an arbiter of the scientific method
has failed.

It may not be a 100% correlation but HIV "rethinking" appears to be a
good predictor of believe in at least one other kooky idea.

Chris Noble

On 6 Nov 2006 10:12:16 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:

That MAY be true based on older kits and on one test. But the ELISA is
followed up by a Western blot as well as viral load.

Also, the cross-reaction issue is way overblown and distorted.

Name even just two that showed that.

But what I was referring to was the loss of CD4 cells that occurs
after HIV infection which IS correlated with the development of AIDS.
What else causes T cells to go away like that?

The nukes and PIs do indeed affect CD4 counts and viral loads. Mostly
by causing the former to increase and the latter to decrease to below
detectability.

The claims of CD4 counts are most certainly NOT "discounted" by anyone
I've ever seen. That's just a lie.

Name these 10 "reasons."

The site dose not list them.

No.

George M. Carter