HIV today~Do you care about the status of your sexual partners?

MJ, absolutely there's a danger in any repeat exposure. We don't know how long repeated exposure to hiv, especially in the case of mucousal trauma (and that is both vaginal and anal tissue), occurs before seroconversion. We don't know where in the genetic sequence the neutralizing antibodies (not T-cells) reside. No one should consider themselves immune. There is always the risk of transmission (aka the Typhoid Mary syndrome), but current research indicates a weaker pathogenesis and infection outcome from patients already on the cocktail. However, if the elite controller/non-progressor is treatment naive then there is strong chance the virus is wild-type and could be highly infectious. But, since these patients have such low copies (below 50 ml), it's possible the virus could be overwhelmed in the host and not particularly pushy in terms of transmission.

Matthew is right about the stance of large sections of the African-American community seeing AIDS as a white disease (for decades). Emory U and UAB, both Center peers, have done profiles on the entire down-low phenomena (Did Terry McMillan help??) and how the culture of denial helped percolate the disease through the African-American communities in these regions. Please don't even get me started on Mbeki (South Africa's Prime Minister after Mandela). He has been publicly, repeatedly quoted as dismissing AIDS as a white man's disease.

right, mbeki doesn't even believe that hiv causes aids.

and lots of groups were in denial about aids in america as well. that's why magic johnson getting it was such a huge deal.

"Then Why Do you Promote the Condom Industry "Safe Sex" Campaign?"

Please do not put words in my mouth. I advocate the use of condoms, that does not mean I endorse any industry sales campaign. At this point in our history the only condoms available are produced by private-for profit companies. Condoms should be free and paid for by the government. Think how many condoms could be produced just by the millions of dollars spent in one day on occupying Iraq.

Thomas, your anger is totally justified, but the problem is not that a conspiracy is behind the AIDS crisis. The problem is a government and health care system that puts the profits of a few before the needs of the many.

Duesberg has never mapped a gene in his life. Get a grip. Accreditation by association is pure folly.

www.DUESBERG.com Next you'll say he was never associated with the NIH too...I think you two NEED to Schedule Afternoon tea.




Retroviruses...so, the flu is no longer dangerous? Goodness...

The Flu should be Treated as the Flu and with Flu Medications NOT TOXIC DNA CHAIN TERMINATORS and Protease Inhibitors.. Geesh..




Alternative is a word you use, not me.

This is the Name of this Forum! geeeeee wizzzzzz Are you sure you have credentials or even an IQ?




All you've managed to do is to copy and paste info from other sites,

I WILL CONTINUE TO COPY AND PASTE..Get Over It.




not very much of that information has its basis in facts.


YOUR EARTH IS LOOKING PRETTY FLAT Wally...




If you ever get to the point where you actually understand the underlying processes and principles behind that which you deny, please feel free to start talking about them. I'm all ears.


I am beginning to Question if you are even worthy at this point..

Here is the REAL world...

1. Dissent is good and drives research in honest directions, and it also drives competition -- which brings break-thru's on occasion.


"The Best Form of Patriotism is Dissent" ~ Thomas Jefferson .....however those who Question the X`Treme Gaping Holes in the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis are Belittled as Quacks, Flat Earthers(Although Galileo was a Dissident)Homophobes,Idiots.. and ARE NOT WELCOMED.






2. Putting all of your eggs in the Papadopulos/Duesberg basket is risky, especially if you do so and decide that safe sex is no longer necessary because HIV does not cause AIDS.


Putting ALL of YOUR EGGS in the Name of the P R O B A B L E Cause Of AID$ RE$EARCH Will Certainly Have you IN LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS And Supreme MIND CONTROL. The Economic Powers of the CHURCH of HIV wouldn't have it any other way...Just ask BILL GATES.



3. The assertions of Peter Duesberg and Eleni Papadopulos and Bryan J. Ellison that HIV does not cause AIDS are still UNPROVEN. Even they won't go out on a limb to say they are 100% correct... If you read their remarks carefully, this will begin to stick out like a sore thumb.

Just in time for World AIDS Day: Three new studies and a journal
articleall authored by mainstream researchers that question popular ideas and
conventional thinking about HIV and AIDS, from your friends at Alive & Well.

===

The Failure of Viral Load Tests
JAMA Study Shakes AIDS Science, Angers HIV Advocates

A nationwide team of orthodox AIDS researchers led by doctors Benigno
Rodriguez and Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland are disputing the value of viral load testsa standard used since
1996 to assess health, predict progression to disease, and grant
approval to new AIDS drugsafter their study of 2,800 HIV positives concluded
viral load measures failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or
explain immune status.

Published in the September 27, 2006 issue of the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA), the findings by Rodriguez et al shake the
foundation of the past decade of AIDS science to its core, inciting
skepticism and anger among many HIV adherents.

Belief in viral load spread quickly following the 1996 publication of a
paper in the journal Science authored by Dr John Mellors and colleagues
at the University of Pittsburgh. Mellor et al claimed that numbers
produced by the viral load test could accurately predict progression to
disease in HIV positives. Soon, use of this new technology extended far
beyond conclusions drawn by the study and its approval by the FDA as a
prognostic tool.

Claiming viral load numbers corresponded to actual amounts of
infectious virus, scientists used the test as a glib response to unanswered
questions about how HIV could cause AIDS (Its the virus, stupid!).
Pharmaceutical companies jumped on the bandwagon, using changes in viral load
numbers in place of actual health or survival benefits to gain FDA
approval of highly toxic protease inhibitors, a primary ingredient of todays
HAART. Treatment advocates began using viral load to encourage healthy
HIV positives with unhealthy numbers to hit early and hard with the
newly approved drugs, while AIDS doctors throughout the world started
using viral load for everything from diagnosing illness to confirming HIV
infection.

The new uses for viral load emerged and gained popular acceptance
despite the fact that, according to manufacturers literature, the viral load
test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a
diagnostic to confirm the presence of HIV infection.

In a September 29th news article regarding the Rodriguez study, Mellors
announced he doesn't agree with the paper at all, insisting that viral
load is the most powerful predictor of time to AIDS and death." Some
AIDS rethinkers note that in defending his opinion, Mellors describes
viral load as powerful, an adjective frequently found in the headlines of
AIDS drug ads--drugs approved for use based on their ability to affect
viral load numbers rather than to produce clinical health benefits or
increase survival.

While Mellors and others protest or down play the significance of the
JAMA article, Rodriguez's group stands by its conclusion that viral load
is only able to predict progression to disease in 4% to 6% of
HIV-positives studied, challenging much of the basis for current AIDS science
and treatment policy.

For further information see: Cohen J. Study says HIV blood levels don't
predict immune decline. Science 313(5795):1868, 2006; Rodriquez B,
Sethi AK, Cheruvu VK, et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on
rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA
296(12):1498-506, 2006

===

New Study Questions Reliability of T Cell Counts Finds HIV Negatives
with AIDS Defining Numbers

Following the news that viral load is not an accurate method of
assessing or predicting immune status comes word from the Journal of
Infectious Diseases that T cell counts may be less reliable measures of immune
competence than previously believed.

A study in Africa conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO)
revealed that HIV negative populations can have T cell counts below 350, a
number that would, according to WHO guidelines, qualify for an AIDS
diagnosis in HIV positive populations. Another surprising conclusion from
the same WHO
study: HIV positives that started AIDS drug treatment with low T cell
counts had the same survival outcomes as HIV positives that began
treatment with high T cell counts.

Check out the conundrums in this November 11 2006 article from New
Scientist found online at
www.newscientist.com/article...rly.html

Are We Prescribing HIV Drugs Properly?

In cash-starved regions of the world, deciding who should get
anti-retroviral drugs for HIV is a tough call. Now it seems that one of the main
tools for making that decision may be less reliable than it appeared.

World Health Organization guidelines recommend starting anti-retroviral
drugs when someone's CD4 cell count has fallen below 350 cells per
microlitre, an indicator of HIV infection, or for people with symptoms of
AIDS whose CD4 count has dropped to below 200.

Brian Williams of the WHO and his colleagues studied HIV-positive and
HIV-negative populations in eight African countries including Ethiopia,
South Africa, Uganda and Zambia. They found that between 3 and 5 per
cent of HIV-negative people had CD4 counts below 350.

What's more, when people with low pre-infection cell counts did
contract HIV, and received anti-retrovirals, they survived for about nine
years - the same as people with high counts (Journal of Infectious
Diseases, vol 194, p 1450).

The new findings call into question just how much we understand about
CD4 cells and their interaction with HIV, says Williams. "Generally, if
you have high CD4 counts you can be considered to be doing pretty well
and if you have very low counts, you're in trouble," says Williams.

But CD4 counts can vary a lot naturally so if you follow the WHO
guidelines to the letter, then some people started on anti-retrovirals would
not even be infected with HIV, he concludes.

===

Lancet Study Challenges Claims about HAART Treatment Does Not = Life

The surprising conclusion from a recent study published in the medical
journal, The Lancet: After starting treatment with HARRT, viral
response improved but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in
mortality.

The multi-center study reported in The Lancet article tracked the
effects of HAART on some 22,000 previously treatment naove HIV positives
between 1995 and 2003 at 12 locations in Europe and the USA. Instead of
finding data that provide a ringing endorsement of anti-HIV drug therapy,
the studys results refute popular claims that the newer anti-HIV meds
extend life or improve health.

Commenting on the article, Felix de Fries of Study Group AIDS-Therapy
in Zurich, Switzerland had this to say: The Lancet study shows that
after a short period of time, HAART treatment led to increases in precisely
those opportunistic infections that define AIDSfrom fungal infections
of the lungs, skin and intestines to various mycobacterial infections.
De Fries also notes that while HAART has led to no sustained increases
in CD4 counts, no reduction in AIDS-defining illness and no decrease in
mortality rates, its use is associated with a list of serious adverse
events including cardiovascular disease, lipodystrophy, lactacidosis,
liver and kidney failure, osteoporosis, thyroid dysfunction, neuropathy,
and non-AIDS cancers among users.

For more information, please refer to The Lancet, issue 368:451-58
and/or The Study Group AIDS-Therapy by telephone or fax at 0041 44 401 34
24 or by email at felix.defries@tele2.ch

===

Journal Article Advocates Radical Approach to AIDS Prevention Questions
Popular Ideas about HIV in Africa

Excerpted from
www.health-e.org.za/news/article.php

Taking a swipe at those who try to blame sexual behaviour for the
rampant HIV epidemic in southern Africa, Professor Eileen Stillwaggon says
that they are caught up in "exotic notions" about Africans. Instead,
AIDS prevention efforts will be more successful if they focus on
"biological and socio-economic factors" that can be addressed relatively easily
and cheaply, she argues persuasively in the latest edition of Africa
Policy Journal.

"Differences in sexual behaviour cannot explain 50-fold differences in
HIV prevalence around the world," writes the economics professor from
Gettysburg College. "Yet global AIDS policy relies almost entirely on
behavioural interventions - abstinence or condoms - for HIV prevention.
Southern Africa's very high AIDS rate has been a source of much
speculation. President Thabo Mbeki has been the most vocal proponent for
poverty to be put on the global AIDS agenda, and has also condemned Western
notions of African sexuality in the context of AIDS.

Stillwaggon is no AIDS denialist, but she doesn't mince words when she
condemns those who propose that changing sexual behaviour is the main
solution to Africa's AIDS epidemic. "Policymakers seem to be convinced
(without evidence) that Africans are having more sex than Americans.
They do not ask why US college campuses, where rates of chlamydia and
genital herpes are as high as 30 to 40 percent, do not have high rates of
HIV." She argues compelling for a return to "the fundamental causes" of
the raid spread of AIDS in poor countries - biological and
socio-economic factors.

As far as biology is concerned, says Stillwaggon, the immune systems of
people in southern Africa are weakened by malnutrition and parasitic
illnesses. Malnutrition - a deficiency of energy, protein and minerals
such as iron, zinc and vitamins - makes a person far more susceptible to
infectious and parasitic diseases. These deficiencies make it hard for
new cells to be built, including CD4 cells that protect the body from
infections.

"A malnourished, parasite-laden population gives rise to a very
different epidemic dynamics from that of a healthier population, but models
used by the major AIDS organisations do not take this into
consideration," says Stillwater. Instead, she says, they use a "one-size-fits-all"
approach based on behaviour change that ignores factors that make poor
people especially vulnerable. The easier, cheaper approach would be to
address nutritional deficiencies and parasite infections.

Stillwaggon's approach is a radical departure from the norm, and offers
fresh solutions to AIDS prevention where the decades-old mantra of
"abstain, be faithful and condomise" has been unable to stop the spread.

===

AIDS and the Ecology of Poverty

More on Stillwaggons ideas from the Oxford University Press web site:
www.us.oup.com/us/catalog...elopmental/

Why does AIDS policy ignore much of what is known about epidemics and
why they spread? HIV/AIDS flourishes where people are dying of myriad
other diseases that are almost unknown among affluent populations. In her
book "AIDS and the Ecology of Poverty," Eileen Stillwaggon draws on
conventional epidemiology, which recognizes that people who are
malnourished, burdened with parasites and infectious diseases, and who lack
access to medical care are vulnerable to other diseases, regardless of
whether they are transmitted by air, water, food, or sexual contact.
HIV/AIDS is no exception.

This book delivers a telling critique of the behavioral explanation of
epidemic AIDS and the stereotypes that lie beneath it. It also shows
how the methodologies applied in recent epidemiology and health economics
are based on a one-risk-fits-all model that ignores the greater
vulnerability of poor people and gives rise to policies that are narrow,
shortsighted, and dead-end.

Stillwaggon combines the insights of economics and biology to explain
the epidemic spread of HIV/AIDS in poor populations in developing and
transition countries. Drawing on a wealth of scientific evidence, the
author demonstrates that the HIV/AIDS epidemic cannot be stopped in
isolation. She offers pragmatic solutions to economic, social, and health
problems that beset poor populations and contribute to the spread of
HIV/AIDS.

===


New Web Sites

Former State Senator Stephen Davis just launched two new web sites,
both designed specifically as starting points for people whove tested HIV
positive to help them begin to explore the other side of AIDS.

www.HelpForHIV.com offers a gentle introduction to the concept
that test results may be wrong and provides supporting scientific
literature. The site includes links to 50 podcasts featuring recorded
interviews with various dissident experts, along with links to videos,
scientific papers and newspaper and magazine articles dealing specifically
with HIV tests and AIDS drugs. The site also lists books, links to all
AIDS rethinking websites and blogs, and has a questionnaire people can
fill out to help build a database for future legal action.

The second new site www.livingwithouthivdrugs.com/ archives a
growing collection of true-life stories of HIV positives living healthy
and happy lives without HIV medications.

Davis plans to promote HelpForHIV.com in the coming weeks and months
through blogs and chat rooms, radio interviews, Google and Yahoo ads, and
if all goes well, some TV spots. Davis says, My hope is that these new
websites can attract a large number of HIV positives and help them
learn the truth about the HIV tests and HIV drugs, creating a powerful
community of support at the grassroots level.

===

Not So New Web Sites Worth A Second Look

- Theres a whole new links page at the Alive & Well web site enabling
visitors to find new science and medical information, lots of health
resources and more. Check it out at www.aliveandwell.org

- Visit aras.ab.ca to find new links to recent articles on
topics ranging from the AIDS drug tenofovir to routine HIV testing and
several new pieces inspired by Celia Farber's March 2006 article in Harpers
magazine, AIDS and the Corruption of Science.

- Dont miss the new Challenges page at the Rethinking AIDS web site,
which features a collection of informative and entertaining exchanges
with AIDS and other medical experts on a variety of related subjects.

See www.rethinkingaids.com/Challe...ex.html





4. No matter what causes AIDS, the sheer weight of years of empirical evidence does show that HIV/AIDS infections do directly correlate with unprotected sex, shared needles, and bodily fluid transfers. This fact is not being disputed by any of your heroes (Peter Duesberg, Eleni Papadopulos, Brian J. Ellison, et al).

The PERTH GROUP
The view of The Perth Group is that the HIV/AIDS experts have not proven:
1. The existence of a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV.
2. The "HIV" antibody tests are specific for "HIV" infection.
3. The HIV theory of AIDS, that is, that HIV causes acquired immune deficiency (destruction of T4 lymphocytes=AID) or that AID leads to the development of the clinical syndrome AIDS.
4. The "HIV genome", (RNA or DNA) originates in a unique, exogenously acquired infectious retroviral particle.
5. HIV/AIDS is infectious, either by blood, blood products or sexual intercourse.
6. Mother to child transmission of a retrovirus HIV or its inhibition with AZT or nevirapine.

The Perth Group has argued:
1. The impossibility of haemophiliacs acquiring HIV following factor VIII infusions.
2. That AIDS and all the phenomena inferred as "HIV" are induced by changes in cellular redox brought about by the oxidative nature of substances and exposures common to all the AIDS risk groups and to the cells used in the "culture" and "isolation" of "HIV".
3. That AIDS will not spread outside the original risk groups.
4. That the cessation of exposure to oxidants and/or use of anti-oxidants will improve the outcome of AIDS patients.
5. That the pharmacological data prove AZT cannot kill "HIV" and AZT is toxic to all cells and may cause some cases of AIDS.

Does the Perth Group really believe HIV does not exist?

The Perth Group does not broker beliefs and has never claimed HIV does not exist. (Neither have we claimed AIDS does not exist although we and our colleagues are often referred to as "AIDS Denialists"). What we have argued on numerous occasions in our publications and presentations is there is no proof that a retrovirus HIV does exist. Not in test-tubes, not in AIDS patients and not in anyone who is "HIV" positive. We freely concede that our assertion may be wrong but to date no HIV expert has responded with any argument that has convinced us otherwise. There is a tradition in science that those who propose theories provide the proof. According to this tradition it is up to the HIV protagonists to come up with proof that HIV does exist. A scientist cannot employ the "Martian" argument. That Martians exist because there is no proof they do not exist. It is our long held view that the laboratory phenomena documented by Montagnier and Gallo in Science in 1983/84 (which are still the best papers on this particular topic) are not specific for retroviruses and do not constitute proof of isolation of a retrovirus. In regard to Montagnier's "discovery of HIV"


PETER DUESBERG

He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health.

The HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 16 Predictions Versus the Facts

Adapted from: Duesberg, P. H., Koehnlein, C., and Rasnick, D. 2003. The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. J. Biosci. 28:383–412, Table 4.

All quotes are from The Durban Declaration, the most authoritative edition of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis to date, which was signed “by over 5000 people, including Nobel prizewinners” and published in Nature in 2000 (The Durban Declaration. 2000. Nature 406:15-16.). Numbers in parentheses are for the references given at the end of the text.

www.rethinkaids.com/body.cfm






5. The message you are giving is that HIV/AIDS is a myth, and the unspoken conclusion is that worrying about getting it is unnecessary as long as you DON'T take the drugs. This is irresponsible in the extreme, and you should be reminding people about the importance of safe sex (see #4).


The hazardous condom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 4, 2001
1:00 a.m. Eastern




Former U.S. Congressman Tom A. Coburn, M.D., ran a tank through the propaganda of condom safety in a recent press release he issued entitled "Safe Sex Myth Exposed by Scientific Report."

The spectacular evidence of condom dangers came from a report co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The high-ranking scientific panel considered data on only eight of roughly 25 widespread STD's: HIV, chancroid, genital herpes, human papillomavirus (HPV), gonorrhea, syphilis, trichomoniasis and chlamydia.

For decades the CDC, Planned Parenthood, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States and the rest of the sex-education cartel have sworn kids could be safely sexy and confident when rolling on their stylish rubbers. Sure.

The panel reported, however, that after millions of tax dollars were spent for decades of sex-education programs, posters, lectures, plays and documentaries promoting their use, condoms are a toxic STD prophylactic.

Dr. Hal Wallis, a spokesman for the Physicians Consortium of over 2,000 medical doctors and healthcare professionals, noted that the NIH report "proves that abstinence, not condoms, must be the focus of federal health efforts," adding that "the entire public health model developed by the CDC … is a lie."

Dr. Coborn is livid. He charged that the CDC violated the law he authored (Public Law 106-554) compelling all federally-funded organizations to supply "medically accurate information regarding the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing" HPV and other STDs.

No health agency has released a guesstimate of how many children and adults, operating their condoms by the book, have died based on the health establishment's bogus condom claims.

For, it turns out that while STD infections are a principal cause of women's sterility, chronic disease and early death, condoms afford girls and women categorically no protection from seven of the eight STD's studied, even when used faultlessly 100 percent of the time.

Condoms may curb gonorrhea in heterosexual intercourse – but only for men!

And even the claim that condoms often hinder HIV/AIDS is questionable. Here are a few reasons seldom mentioned:


The scientific panel studied data from several small groups of heterosexual couples, with one partner an AIDS carrier – the longest follow-up study being three years. Allegedly, if condoms are applied without fail in normal vaginal intercourse, approximately 15 out of each 100 uninfected partners will get HIV annually.

However, there is no information on how often these "couples" actually did the "marital act."

And, for those folks who engage in various sodomies, NIH gave no clues on rates of condom breakage and slippage. So, the data clearly void condom "security" for homosexual participants.
Also relevant, condom safety claims may be killing girls and women en masse. Condoms do not stop genital HPV, the most common STD. Said Dr. Coborn, "every year, 15,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed and 5,000 women die of the disease. Hundreds of thousands of other women will be diagnosed and treated for pre-cancerous condition. HPV is the cause of nearly all cervical cancer and has also been linked to prostate, anal and oral cancer."

So, sexual disease results from promoting sexual license and concealing condom dangers.

Since 1950, Kinseyan sexuality advocates have promoted the importance of sexual freedom. On that simple-minded basis, American laws were altered to push child "education" in sex, via "safe sex" condom mastery.

But, they lied.

So, hold on to your hats folks. Look for possibly thousands of lawsuits coming down the expressway. Planned right, these should make the tobacco debacle look like a Victorian ladies tea as teachers, school systems, the CDC, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, etc., are sued for wrongful death, "false claims," "contributing to the delinquency of minors," and scores of other criminal violations of law.





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


Dr. Judith Reisman is president of the Institute for Media Education and is the author of "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
ALL OF MY HATE CANNOT BE FOUND ~ KORN
www.MySapce.com/HIVisaLIE

My point exactly matthew
only a "child-man" like Tomas would even say something like this at all in THIS particular debate.
Video Gaming is the predominant thinking of that wich lies inside the mindset of a "Child". A Child's World is his Playstation Console.

Gag Env and Pol Ring a Bell? Matt? Remember Google Proves all! ;-)

Awww so thats IT?
Poor liddle dum dum Tomas has a 50 cent an hour job!
Your vocabulary and text writings indicate this so why wouldn't it be true?
Ohh and you ARE a ...liddle twinky who was in pissy shit loaded diapers when I was in High School DO take a look in your mirror if you want to see a Picture of a loser..Ohh wait..what kind of camera DID you use to snap that blurred wasted image of you in your avatar? Ohh I remember...It was either a 1970's Polaroid land Camera..or a VERY cheap-ass webcam!
And Tomas? whats UP with the zero freinds indicator?...Ohh WAIT..yep..your just "Here" to preach the evils of HIV and it's origins like any other "Crusader"..so no "freinds" are needed.
Sorry bout mentioning your Mommy...at least that struck a chord and now we know "who wronged the angry liddle boi".

tomas, your writing reads like a pamphlet written by a crackhead.

{Thanks so much for your "Laundry List" of Antiretroviral Side effects liddle frightened Boi!}


JAKE NOT ONLY ARE YOU IN DENIALISTIC APPROACHES TO HIV/AID$ BUT YOU ARE NOW A FREAK OF NATURE!

Pins & Needles,Tooth loss,Alopecia,Facial and Muscle Wasting ...HUNCH BACK & FRANKENSTEIN??? but he's ALIVE!

I was the Nice Little Gay Boy Who did everything they told me and I believed them! IF HIV Causes GROWN MEN TO WEAR DIAPERS Versus www.STAYNEGATIVE.ORG Immediate Response to your so-called CULTIC BELIEF SYSTEM then Wallow in your OWN Denial or Shut the Fuck up Jake.

ALSO Trying to Hurt me By Bringing up my Mother Makes you look foolish! and you are NO Different than FRED PHELPS HIMSELF.