-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Fri, December 8, 2006 - 4:43 PM(thanks for carrying this over to a new thread strand, MJ. My head was starting to spin from the length of the original thread!) -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 7:28 AMDo you want some popcorn? -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 7:40 AMSure, I'll grab my blanket too for this round......it's chilly outside. -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 11:07 AMDoes anyone in this thread own a Playstation? -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 3:49 PM>>He opened up a "Pandora's Box" of both rudeness and insensitivity toward persons who have AIDS and I am just choking the little fuck with it.
I'm just quoting Jake from the previous thread here because i REFUSE to engage in making the first thread any longer, here.
The sentiments above are absolutely regarding a certain poster. I took some time to go through almost every post in the first thread and Tomas didn't make a lick of sense and instead managed to turn a world wide pandemic into........................ a game........a video one at that. Does anyone take anything seriously, especially the lives of other people who are coping with HIV/AIDS. I would venture to say the invention of HIV meds has distorted the whole issue and resulted in troubling phemon of those who shrug off the notions that HIV IS deadly. With that these people forget that drugs, the rare cases of those who are "ïmmuned" are beacons of light in the face of such dark tragedy... the core of that dark tragedy existing in Africa and third world countries. Those who dream up this arm chair science bullshit don't give a shit about those countries or even what going on here at home but fool themse;lves into believing they are some brand of activist when they are furthest from it. Undoing what has been done to provide sufficient data to help people avoid this disease and possibly cure it.. Some of the stuff provided is so dangerous in fact that it could, would and should be used by some republicrat to regulate an immunization or even cure if it ever came to that. To be perfectly honest, denialist, who claim AIDS as a myth of any variety are passe gay liberations who probably wanna continue fucking in the bathhouses on meth and don't care about the community....... or even believe in it or now it's meaning. Far more respectable work is being done now. Denialist hopefully will stay on the bandwagon of freakish counterculture cults without any real purpose other than to shout the sky is red when it's obviously blue just because the word red exist and it's different.
gak. -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 8:35 PMKash wrote: "Does anyone take anything seriously, especially the lives of other people who are coping with HIV/AIDS. I would venture to say the invention of HIV meds has distorted the whole issue and resulted in troubling phemon of those who shrug off the notions that HIV IS deadly. With that these people forget that drugs, the rare cases of those who are "ïmmuned" are beacons of light in the face of such dark tragedy... the core of that dark tragedy existing in Africa and third world countries. Those who dream up this arm chair science bullshit don't give a shit about those countries or even what going on here at home but fool themse;lves into believing they are some brand of activist when they are furthest from it."
Kash, I really wish you'd known me when I was actually dying from so-called "AIDS". You wouldn't say what you're saying now, and I certainly have every reason to take offense at your insinuation that I don't know or care about the plight of people living with AIDS. It just so happens that I used to be one of them, until I was nearly killed by my doctor in November of 2000. Since then, I've recovered my health without ARVs, by finding and treating the REAL cause of the illness I used to have. What armchair bullshit? I've LIVED what I'm talking about.
For two years, Kash, I complained to my doctor that I was sick, and that I felt that it was the mold in my apartment that was making me sick, but she kept insisting that I was healthy as a horse and that I was her "miracle patient" whose immune system was so great that I'd never get AIDS, especially not with all the great drugs she was prescribing for me. She based this medical opinion solely on the fact that my CD4 counts were high (sometimes as high as 1700+) and my viral load had always remained low or non-detectable. Because of this, she completely ignored the clinical symptoms I was describing, and instead insisted that I was perfectly healthy, despite the fact that I obviously looked like death warmed over and constantly complained of severe illness.
It took me developing pneumonia so severe that it hurt like hell just to take a teaspoonful or so of air into my lungs, for her to finally even acknowledge that I was sick. By then it was almost too late for me -- I nearly died. When this happened, she finally referred me to a respiratory specialist (something that if she'd done two years earlier, I would have never developed pneumonia in the first place.) The respiratory specialist referred me to an allergist, and whaddaya know, it turned out I was extremely allergic to the sorts of toxic mold that we have in the Houston area, and which was growing like wild throughout my entire apartment complex, due to flood damage from 5 years earlier that had never been properly repaired.
Don't tell me I'm disrespecting those with AIDS, and that I don't know what it's like to be told you're dying of it -- if anything, I'm trying to save as many people as I can from the sort of death that I very nearly experienced 6 years ago, (almost to the day), due to the misdiagnosis and inappropriate medical treatment that occurs whenever one tests false positive on a test for antibodies to a virus that's never been proven to exist. (And what sorts of things cause one to test false positive? Why most of them are illnesses, including quite a number of AIDS-indicator diseases. Go figure.)
Gak indeed.
--- Gos
-
Denialist Strikes back? life-sabers,Yoda, and HIVism
Wed, December 13, 2006 - 10:24 AM>>He opened up a "Pandora's Box" of both rudeness and insensitivity toward persons who have AIDS and I am just choking the little fuck with it.
I'm just quoting Jake from the previous thread here because i REFUSE to engage in making the first thread any longer, here.
First of all choking anyone is a crime and against the law in most states if not all...Second and most Importantly a Part II Series of "the Saga goes on" is an EXTENTION of the Original. Thirdly There were a BUNCH OF US stooping to the same level of attacks which I ADMITTED.
By the way I like how you mainstreamers adopt language from each other and as Jake adopted the "Pandora's Box" from the article I posted BEFORE this thread "the empire strikes back".
Rodney Richards "The Hidden facts and dangers of HIV tests"
The sentiments above are absolutely regarding a certain poster. I took some time to go through almost every post in the first thread and Tomas didn't make a lick of sense and instead managed to turn a world wide pandemic into........................ a game........a video one at that.
Actually Mad Jack Kash I Asked a Question SPECIFICALLY to you that STILL has never been answered from anyone here dissident or non-dissident and your ORIGINAL THREAD started by you and Contrary to Popular Oppinon says Quote: "I am Interested in seeing the Responses to this" and as far as the "world wide pandemic" that you claim I am NOT Convinced that there is one. I do believe however there is an "Epidemic" of Worthless and Useless Testing for HIV that Creates an Illusion of a Pandemic,Fear and Hysteria world wide.
Never Mind all of the Pointless posts by Jake he is Dismissed as a "Saint".
Does anyone take anything seriously, especially the lives of other people who are coping with HIV/AIDS.
I was a so-called HIV Patient for 6 Years and seen all of the Mainstream Corruption with my own eyes.. My Medical Records remain a Constant reminder of this Corruption. I do care more than you can imagine .. this issue has become apart of my life and I so passionately want to help innocent people from being Murdered by Toxic Drugs ESPECIALLY in Africa.
I would venture to say the invention of HIV meds has distorted the whole issue and resulted in troubling phemon of those who shrug off the notions that HIV IS deadly.
I Cringe at the thought of calling them "HIV Meds" Because I know very well that they are Poisons far being the abilities of a Retrovirus.
With that these people forget that drugs, the rare cases of those who are "ïmmuned" are beacons of light in the face of such dark tragedy...
The Drugs Destroy everything that makes a human being a "Human Being". Their DNA. Their Immune System.
the core of that dark tragedy existing in Africa and third world countries. Those who dream up this arm chair science bullshit don't give a shit about those countries or even what going on here at home but fool themse;lves into believing they are some brand of activist when they are furthest from it.
No One is dreaming anything..Facts are Facts and thank God for MBEKI.
Undoing what has been done to provide sufficient data to help people avoid this disease and possibly cure it..
Ya think possibly that "Gallo" and "the Cure" is OLD NEWS...
Some of the stuff provided is so dangerous in fact that it could, would and should be used by some republicrat to regulate an immunization or even cure if it ever came to that.
You have an Oppinion...you are indeed entitled to it..... a Vaccine if produced would be a massive world wide Iatrogenocide.
To be perfectly honest, denialist, who claim AIDS as a myth of any variety are passe gay liberations who probably wanna continue fucking in the bathhouses on meth and don't care about the community.......
Those who espouse to such oppinion are to be questioned at every opportunity...man shall not lie with mankind,(As with womankind) dogmatics,denialists,ignorists,NARTHist,propagandists,ban the gay marriage cliche to keep "Levitical HIV Infected sodomites" to this Mindset... Lets keep them in bathhouses, on rec drugs and on DNA Chain Terminators...never mind HIV is a Gay Disease Mad Jack Kash own it end it!
or even believe in it or now it's meaning. Far more respectable work is being done now. Denialist hopefully will stay on the bandwagon of freakish counterculture cults without any real purpose other than to shout the sky is red when it's obviously blue just because the word red exist and it's different.
gak.
using "The Martian Argument" to say Aliens exist is no different than your red and blue sky phenomenon. bark up any tree you wish and live in your fantasy world bro!
Tomás
MySpace.com/HIVisaLIE
-
-
Re: Denialist Strikes back? life-sabers,Yoda, and HIVism
Wed, December 13, 2006 - 10:36 AM
Saying "i was a so called AIDS patient.......so..... i can question the estabilshment and undermine those who have aids/HIV... "" is like.... "I know five black folk so i can say nigger and make race jokes.........I know 5 SO CALLED black people...heh!"
The thread is so entirely lonnnnnnnng and jumps around in circles i'm not sure what question you asked.
-
-
Mad Kash Jack
Wed, December 13, 2006 - 12:45 PMI said QUOTE"
"I was a so-called "HIV Patient " for 6 Years and seen all of the Mainstream Corruption with my own eyes.."
This Is the Problem with most people they have been brainwashed with "Terminology" I never said I was an "AIDS PATIENT" you subconsciously used AIDS with HIV Interchangeably when you know its wrong,
I have Never had an AIDS Diagnosis but your Mind is Programmed to think other wise.
I am Not sure why you brought up a racial analogy to TRY to prove your Point but as I made several comments in YOUR previous thread on several topics I pointed out that while I go by Tomás instead of Thomas and I appear to many people as hispanic descent. I have been called a "SPIC" and I am White what do I gain from underminding people. If My Testimony doesn't appeal to you then that's your Perogative however on a personal level this can be selfish of you since I am a Human being.
blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-1l7...gxQYVFYw-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Fri, December 8, 2006 - 5:16 PM<<So, hammer away, but I've told you my stand on your "4-proofs _challenge_," ...>>
Wally, are you still yammering away about that??? I let you off that hook yesterday, seeing that you obviously couldn't answer even one of those.
I've offered you a much easier out already. Name ONE Nobel laureate among your precious orthodox AIDS researchers. ONE. That's something that I won't be able to dispute if you do it. It's unambiguous, and not in any way subject to interpretation. Name ONE non-dissident AIDS researcher who has won the Nobel Prize. Surely, if they've saved so many people from the dread scourge of AID$, there should be many. Name ONE.
--- Gos -
-
Unsu...
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 7:46 PMIrrelevant...your entire post is irrelevant.
-
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 8:55 PMC'mon, Wally, you've already wussed out of providing any proof that HIV exists or that there's any such thing as a test for it that's actually been verified against actual finding of virus in those who test positive. Instead, you accused me of trying to throw up 90 different kinds of bullshit so that you'd have to wade through it knee-deep, so that I could say I'd won when you refused to go to the trouble.
So now I'm making it easy for you, and I'm gonna stick to this ONE thing -- not 4 proofs, not three reasons to believe in ARVs, not even two reasons why we should believe that AIDS is caused by a virus when its spread has in no way resembled that of any virus in history -- ONE challenge: Name a non-dissident AIDS researcher who has won a Nobel Prize.
Surely this is so easy that if you don't name one, someone else in this room surely can.
Tellya what, I'll even start by naming three dissident scientists who won the Nobel:
Dr. Barbara McClintock (1983 Medicine, discovered gene transposition)
Dr. Kary Mullis (1993 Chemistry, discovered the PCR technique which is used, among other things, to count viral load)
Dr. Walter Gilbert (1980 Chemistry, pioneered methods for determining nucleotide sequences in nucleic acids.)
--- Gos -
-
Unsu...
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 12:14 PMAgain, irrelevent in every aspect.
Until you understand how an RNA retrovirus like HIV actually functions, you will always be left with nothing to do but obfuscate to cover up your ignorance.
It is unfortunate that you have to be so bellicose in belaboring every point except the ones that people are trying to talk to you about...those you ignore outright.
You are "making it easy for me" by providing straw men and red herrings that have absolutely nothing to do with the basics of how an HIV virus operates in the real world... Don't pretend that you're doing anything for me -- everything you do is for your own edification.
-
Unsu...
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 12:35 PM" C'mon, Wally, you've already wussed out of providing any proof that HIV exists or that there's any such thing as a test for it that's actually been verified against actual finding of virus in those who test positive. "
------------------------
"Wussed out" of providing proof that HIV exists? That was never something that I was attempting to do...no, in fact I have actually been trying to have a discussion about the virus itself. You've added all the extra fillers to enhance your ubiquitous chest-thumping.
We haven't had a discussion about tests for HIV yet.
-
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 10:07 PMOK, ya know what, Wally, I'm gonna join you at the microscopic level, since that is the scale of your brain anyway.
However, a really good explanation of retroviruses takes time, but considering your short attention span, I shall try to be breif.
A retrovirus is a virus that transcribes RNA into DNA -- hence the prefix "retro-" signifying that the virus works in the reverse manner from other types of viruses. Instead of transcribing cellular DNA into viral RNA as most viruses do to reproduce (killing the cell in the process), a retrovirus transcribes viral RNA into cellular DNA.
By and large retroviruses are harmless, and are referred to by microbiologists as "junk DNA" and some actually serve beneficial roles, such as control of gene transcription, resistance to exogenous retroviral infection, and mediation of cell fusion in an embryo.
In fact, because of their unique method of reproduction, which is dependent upon cellular reproduction, they are actually dependent upon the continued survival and replication of their host cell. Because of this, they were in the pre-AIDS era considered a candidate for cancer-causing viruses, since cancer is a disease in which cells reproduce too rapidly, but while they are often associated with cancer, (for example, retroviral particles have been proven to bud from leukemiac cells,) it has never been proven that they actually cause cancer in any case in humans, and only one or two have ever been found to cause cancer in animals (such as the Rous Sarcoma Virus [RSV] which causes brain tumors in chickens.)
Other notable RNA viruses include the virus that causes smallpox. However, such viruses are an extreme rarity -- 4% of the genetic material in every cell in your body is retroviral -- enough to make 400 retroviral particles the size that HIV is said to be -- and yet they are harming you in no way. The vast majority (>99.9%) are utterly harmless, and as I said earlier, some are actually beneficial.
This is one reason that purification is so important, when one is trying to establish the existence of a single, unique retrovirus, so that it can be proven to cause a particular disease. The presence of retroviruses, by themselves, do not necessarily indicate that they are causing disease, since the vast majority are harmless -- if one wishes to prove that ONE of them causes ONE disease, then one must obtain a purified sample of that ONE virus and inject it into an uninfected host or at least culture it in uninfected tissues or cell cultures, to prove that it infects them and causes the same disease that was observed in the host from which the retrovirus was isolated.
This having never been done with HIV, HIV has never been proven to be the cause of AIDS, or for that matter, to be a single, unique retrovirus. How is it possible to tell the difference between a single virus that mutates rapidly, and a 'soup' of hundreds of different retroviruses, unless you've isolated the virus you're looking for, and cultured it to prove that it mutates? Instead of purifying and culturing HIV, however, Gallo co-cultured cell cultures from AIDS patients with leukemia cells that he'd developed in the laboratory, shocked them with chemicals, and lo and behold, these leukemia cells started to bud retroviruses (as leukemia cells are known to do under certain circumstances). Then he runs out and holds a press conference weeks before his findings are to be published in Science, and voila -- an artefact produced in the laboratory becomes the world's largest viral fraud. (A fraud, by the way, which resulted in him being investigated in the early 1990s, which in turn resulted in censure by the NIH for patent fraud, scientific misconduct, and theft of intellectual property. This is why Gallo no longer works for the NIH, and instead runs a private research facility in Maryland.)
Now, Wally, I've met you on the cellular level. Whatcha gonna do, start naming orthodox AIDS researchers who've won the Nobel Prize? Ya only need to name one, Wally -- surely there are dozens to choose from.
We got laureates, yes we do,
We got laureates, how 'bout YOU?
--- Gos -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 10:12 PMHEYYY GOS!
I can see you have been reading your "Physicians Desk Refference" again..
Nice try! -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 11:15 PM"HEYYY GOS!
I can see you have been reading your "Physicians Desk Refference" again..
Nice try!"
...said the man who had nothing better to say, because he'd been beaten at his own game and knew it. His hands jittered on the keyboard, causing him to spell "Refference" with two F's.
We got laureates, yes we do,
We got laureates HOW 'BOUT YOU?
--- Gos -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sat, December 9, 2006 - 11:59 PMBeaten at my own game?...not hardly!
My "Game" with this thread and "the other one" is just beginning Gos.
You and your Buddy Tomas "Hijacked" the point of the original thread wich was NOT "Is HIV/AIDS for real"
It was "Do you care about the status of your sexual partners" SEE the above title for those like you and Tomas who cant read a thread Title and only repond to the CORRECT TOPIC relevant to it's Title
You see Gos? after a thread has been hijacked,it as Wally pointed out,becomes a useless thread,and from that point on its just "Fun for Fodder". -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 12:37 AMOh. OK. Well since you put it that way...
When I have sex with someone, I do not concern myself with whether they are possessed by demons, it does not occur to me to check under the bed for gremlins, and it never once occurred to me that my partner might be a werewolf. Why, then, would I be concerned about whether they have a virus for which there is as much proof as there is for demons, gremlins, and werewolves?
Does that satisfy the question inherent in the title of this thread? It's the most honest answer I can give.
--- Gos
P.S. We've got laureates yes we do
We've got laureates HOW 'BOUT YOU? -
-
Unsu...
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 1:20 AMGos, do you insert your penis into people fuck them and cum inside? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 8:45 AM"Gos, do you insert your penis into people fuck them and cum inside? ?
I know I'm probably being set up here, but I'll go along with the gag.
IF my partner knows my alleged HIV status and he or she still wants me to, then absolutely. I don't fuck anyone who isn't aware of my status.
Since my [mis]diagnosis, I've had three long term relationships, including the one I was in when I first tested positive, which lasted five years thereafter. In the first of the three, we had unprotected vaginal and anal intercourse well over a thousand times, and she never caught it. The second lasted nearly 2 years, in which we had unprotected vaginal and anal sex hundreds of times -- she's still HIV-negative. With the current one, we've been having unprotected vaginal and occasional anal for nearly a year, and she's HIV-negative. In all cases, I came inside them (usually at their insistence, as a matter of fact.)
--- Gos -
-
Unsu...
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 9:02 AMyou are both dangerous and demented. get the help you need. -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 10:11 AMMick,
That's your opinion, and as I told Wally -- if you don't like my sexual practices, don't have sex with me. It's as simple as that.
I have not forced anyone to have sex with me, and I have done nothing to hide my alleged HIV status from any of my sex partners. How any of my sex partners chooses to deal with me sexually and with my HIV status is their own business, and none of yours.
--- Gos -
-
Unsu...
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 10:22 AMI can not engage you gos. -
-
Re: HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners? Part 2 (The Denialist strike back!)
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 10:58 AMWho would even bother? His ranting isn't worth a second thought.
-
-
Sex between a poz and a negative.
Tue, December 12, 2006 - 3:51 AMMick: >>>"Gos, do you insert your penis into people fuck them and cum inside? ?
Gos:>>>>I know I'm probably being set up here, but I'll go along with the gag.
IF my partner knows my alleged HIV status and he or she still wants me to, then absolutely. I don't fuck anyone who isn't aware of my status.
___________
Today i had a conversation with a poz guy who I am very attracted to and our conversation swung into the area of whether he would fuck sa neg guy who knew he was poz, without a condom.
I didnt tell him after he told me yes he would, that his answer deeply troubled me. aTroubled me more after him telling me that he could not live with himself he seroconverted someone else and gave them this very difficult and scary disease.
I didnt understand his answer and how it could exist on two opposite sides of the responsibilty spectrum and be in the same mans mind. what?
I believe that you DO become responsible when you know you have a potentailly deadly disease that you fight.......... If you dont want to contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDs...why engage in any sex act that could end up inparticipating in the butterfly effect of infection rates in america.
HOWEVER, i do believe you can only take on so much responsibilty in the act of Love and sex... yet still you could look at it, everytime you fuck as a chance to enjoy yourself and educate without teaching. If someone knows you are Poz and still wants you to cum in them... i find that the most irresponsible act of all because you are contributing to more infections or the possibilty of such. To me if is far different when you do not know opposed to what you do know. When you know you have a potential disase, then you deserve to get your ass CHECKED.
nuff said.
-
-
Re: Sex between a poz and a negative.
Tue, December 12, 2006 - 7:58 AMCan one contract STD's if one is only a "Topman"?
Of course!
If a "Bottom only" Man has Herpes Simplex inside his rectum the "topman" who inserts his Penis in there without a Condom can get Herpes on his Penis.
The same is true of Gohnorreah via the Urethral Opening.
If stage 2 Syphyliss is present in the throat of a Bottom Man,and the Topman "fucks that throat" then the Topman can get it on his Penis and inside his Urethra.
Chlamydia is also spread to the Topman through the oral and anal orifices.
"Non Gonoccal Urethritis" is also listed as an STD,the most common way to get this one is through unprotected Anal sex from bacteria in fecal matter present in the Rectum wich enters the Penis through the Urethra.
Are "Top-Only" Men exempt from STD's? Hell NO!
-
Re: Sex between a poz and a negative.
Tue, December 12, 2006 - 11:14 AM"If someone knows you are Poz and still wants you to cum in them... i find that the most irresponsible act of all because you are contributing to more infections or the possibilty of such. To me if is far different when you do not know opposed to what you do know. When you know you have a potential disase, then you deserve to get your ass CHECKED."
Kash,
For what it's worth, I fully understand your sentiment, and I used to feel exactly the same way.
Shortly after my [mis]diagnosis, I met a "bug chaser" who wanted me to infect him. As it turns out, I was unable to perform, because of the possibility that I might infect him with HIV.
As people will do when they're not having sex, we got into a conversation instead, and I learned a lot about him, including the surprising fact that he'd been actively trying to get HIV for thirteen years, without any success.
I also knew a married guy who died in 2003 with AIDS (or rather, he died of liver failure from the meds.) His wife claimed that the Lord had promised her that if she married him, she could have all the unprotected sex she wanted and she'd never get AIDS. She got tested every two weeks, and as of the day he died, his wife was still HIV-negative.
And as I've already said, I have by this time had unprotected sex thousands of times, with three different long-term partners, all of whom have continued to test negative, even months or years after we'd stopped having sex.
Today, I no longer believe that HIV is sexually transmissible, so for me it's a non-issue, beyond the fact that I don't fuck anyone who isn't aware of my alleged status -- I still don't feel that it would be responsible for me to decide for someone else what risks they should or shouldn't take. As long as they're going into it with their eyes wide open, however, I don't have a problem with it.
I will issue you a challenge, though: Find one scientific study which has actually demonstrated sexual transmission of HIV. The vast majority of tests to determine how transmissible it is have come up entirely empty-handed, while the very few that have documented any seroconversions at all have merely *presumed* sexual transmission -- none have actually *proven* it. Taken as a whole, the scientific study in this particular area gives us no reason to believe that HIV is sexually transmissible at all.
One particular study often quoted by dissidents is Padian et all 1997, which followed 175 serodiscordant monogamous couples for a total of 282 couple-years. At the beginning of the study, 3/4ths of the couples weren't using condoms, and at the end, more than 2/3rds were using condoms. At the end of the study, Padian reported that "no seroconversions were observed."
Today, Dr. Padian herself attempts to debunk dissident use of her study, (you can find her statement at AIDStruth.org), but she does so by pretending that the study was to determine whether condoms are effective (which was stated nowhere in the original study.) This is because if she were to admit the real purpose of the study (ie to determine sexual transmission risk), she'd have to admit that what the study actually demonstrated was ZERO transmission risk, in 282 couple-years (the statistical equivalent of one couple having sex for 282 years, using condoms only about half the time, without transmitting HIV between them.)
--- Gos -
-
Gos >>>The Perth Group's Response to Moore..
Wed, December 13, 2006 - 10:16 PMMoore wrote:
“Nancy Padian’s paper: Nancy Padian of UCSF publishes a classic study on heterosexual HIV transmission in 1997. ... AIDS denialists though conclude that the Padian paper proves that HIV is not heterosexually transmitted and contradicts the author’s own conclusions and to the social science literature. ... Nancy Padian is here today, or said she was going to be here today, and she can speak to this — she’s here — and she can speak to this, how her own paper is being abused and twisted.”
This year, the following correspondence was conducted with Professor Padian:
“As far as I can judge, your data does not prove that HIV is heterosexually transmitted. Am I wrong in my interpretation? If so, would you please give me some details why I am wrong.”
Professor Padian’s response was:
“Yes you are wrong. Read the papers. The discussion in very thorough in each.”
The follow up correspondence was:
“In your publications, you repeatedly pointed out that the data from cross-sectional studies are not reliable. In your 1997 prospective study you "observed no seroconversions...". In your discussion, you also pointed out that "No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up." This is the information which led me to come to the conclusion which you have stated is wrong. I would be grateful if you would tell me what information I am missing.”
Professor Padian did not respond.
The Perth group:
This sequence of events is typical of “HIV” experts. When they are asked initial questions regarding their research, they respond in a patronising manner. Naturally, their response leads to more questions where we “dig deeper”. Faced with such questions they refuse to respond.
It is interesting to note that Professor Padian did not talk on “how her own paper is being abused and twisted”. She said that “scientists need to be trained as to their responsibility to journalists and their responsibility to make their views known through the public venues as well as scientific venues. …we’re working in an anti-science era, and we have our role to play.”
Surely, scientists must be aware of their responsibility to journalists but above all as Howard Temin pointed out ‘‘when an experiment is challenged no matter who it is challenged by, it’s your responsibility to check. That is an ironclad rule of science, that when you publish something you are responsible for it. . .even the most senior professor, if challenged by the lowliest technician or graduate student, is required to treat them seriously and consider their criticisms. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of science’’ (emphasis in original).72
www.rethinkingaids.com/Challe...th.html
-
-
Re: Sex between a poz and a negative.
Tue, December 12, 2006 - 5:11 PMseems to me like people who are poz are often held to higher standards of responsibility when it comes to their sex lives... why is that??
as i see it: if i am a competent individual and i consent to having risky, unprotected sex with someone and i get HIV or another STD as a result, then the only person responsible is ME... not my partner. i can't blame them if i agreed to bareback at the time...
that's why i identify as HIV-neutral. because i fucking hate how poz people are demonized, scorned and seemingly held to higher standards of responsibility for others. IMNSHO, people need to be more self-responsible instead of blaming others for the consequences of their risky choices.
to be honest, i feel that someone else's HIV-status is really none of my business. (whatever happened to their right to privacy?) however, if someone chooses to come out as poz, i regard them as incredibly courageous given all the stigma and judgmental bullshit that people who are poz have to put up with these days... -
-
Unsu...
Re: Sex between a poz and a negative.
Wed, December 13, 2006 - 6:20 AMSinn, I think when the condom comes off the right to privacy goes out the window.
"i feel that someone else's HIV-status is really none of my business. (whatever happened to their right to privacy?)" -
-
Unsu...
Re: Sex between a poz and a negative.
Wed, December 13, 2006 - 10:51 AM" Sinn, I think when the condom comes off the right to privacy goes out the window. " ~Mick
I couldn't agree more -- there is a shared responsibility for forthrightness at that point that trumps "privacy." And it isn't just HIV.
-
-
-
-
-
Mick
Thu, December 14, 2006 - 6:04 AMHey mate! With all Respect ...How can you call someone Dangerous and tell them to "Get Help" and not be able to explain(engage) why you said this?
Every year in this Country that we call America The Popular Music Television (MTV) launches a "Marketing Teen age Format" of the "Get Tested" Campaign or "Knowing is Beautiful" .. isn't it an ODD generalization that the WORLDS Teenage (Promiscuous)Population has ALREADY an Extremely low rate of HIV Infection compared to granny and granpa GONE WILD?
statehealthfacts.org/cgi-bin...acts.cgi -
-
Unsu...
Re: Mick
Thu, December 14, 2006 - 6:40 AMTomás, with equal respec t- Mostly because I think it's a no-brainer.
"Mick
Hey mate! With all Respect ...How can you call someone Dangerous and tell them to "Get Help" and not be able to explain(engage) why you said this?" -
-
Re: Mick
Thu, December 14, 2006 - 2:26 PMMickToday, 6:40 AM
Tomás, with equal respec t- Mostly because I think it's a no-brainer. "
Alrightie then.. Try this "No-Brainer"............Try the Virus Myth Australia exercise
virusmyth.tripod.com/#exercise
Cheers! -
-
Re: Mick
Thu, December 14, 2006 - 3:55 PMvirusmyth.com
a Website who's time has come..and gone,
once again Tomas This as has been ALL of your other AIDS debunking websites is OLD News about AIDS.
BUT...DO keep pushing it Kiddo.."Real People" will see right through it and through you since you and your information are as transparent as plastic wrap!
What was it that got you started on this "Crusade"? Ohh yes,I remember now it was a "Playstation Game" of HIV Medications against a healthy immune system.
Have you contacted ATARI yet? I see a HUGE money making opportunity slipping through your fingers!
And Tomas? We all realise your an immature little boy who's still mad at his Mommy but DO keep your insults on this forum to yourself.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-