Let me start by saying I doubt you are a gay man. And if you are, let me
also say that you prove the point that one can be gay and homophobic, some
of the most homophobic people have been gay. Your analysis assumes the
existance of an 'HIV' and that said entity of retroviral origin has been
properly isolated and, therefore, could conceivably be tested for in
anyone at anytime.

In science as in the law, the affirmative statement bares the burden of
proof. We don't act AS IF something might be true until it has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not upon those
critiquing or challenging the affirmative statement; and affirmative
statement affirms that something exists or causes something, acts upon
something, etc. It is not an affirmative statement to say that 'HIV' does
not exist or does not cause illnesses attributed to or associated with the
CDC redefinition of 20 previously known and unrelated illnesses called
'AIDS.'

The fact that you are willing to accept without question the evidence for
the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, seems to have been affected by your own sickness:
homophobia. Because, you then make the most groundless accusations of some
as yet unknown 'bugs' circulating among those of bad blood: those infected
faggots. Perhaps your shame at your own anal health and hygiene has
created for you a 'block' in your brain. Either that or you are sitting on
it. I'm not surprised Gerbil virus myths-- indeed-- are circulating in the
minds and mouths of immoral minorities.

There is not sufficient evidence to disallow donated blood from all gay
men and it is one more reason how the mindset of
'SAME-SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' lead to the unquestioned acceptance of the
'HIV=AIDS=DEATH' paradigm.

HIV DENIAL OR INFORMED AIDS DISSENT?

DID YOU KNOW hundreds of dissenting or dissident scientists, including
Nobel Laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences,
confirming alternative medicine's long questioning of the virus/germ mode
or 'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model, are calling into question the
dominant, conventional pharmaceutically-based scientific and medical
hypothesis for the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of
'HIV=AIDS?'

Dissidents dissent from a legitimate scientific and medical bases as to
the causatives and curatives for 29 previously known and unrelated 'AIDS'
clinically redefined illnesses, all of which occur in those diagnosed'HIV'
non-specific antibody negative. So, besides the definition and diagnosis
of what is called 'AIDS' Dissidents are also challenging the accuracy and
specifity of the 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests to measure infection
with any virus since there are over 60+ known cross-reactors from
pregnancy to the flu to immunizations to hepatitis to transfusions and on
and on. For these reasons and more, we call for a free scientific inquiry
and exchange at conferences and in college prep and continuing education
courses, letting others know of the conflicts in research methodologies
and ideologies which  prevent our progress in the knowledge about the
health of persons given an 'HIV/AIDS' [mis]diagnosis.

We endorse a multi-factorial approach to immune suficiency and
sustainability in addressing the oxidative stressors including
physical[malnutrition], chemical[toxicologic], biological[dis-ease],
psychological[chronic stress], and spiritual[religious reconciling]-- of
which 'HIV' non-specific, non-confirmatory marker positivity is no
reliable indicator of worthiness or wellness.

We are disbelievers in a '[SAME]SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' mindset having lead
for many to the unquestioned acceptance of the 'HIV=AIDS=DEATH' paradigm.
We endorse proportionate access to alternative health care for the 50%-2/3
of those 'HIV/AIDS' diagnosed which the HHS says are not in 'HIV'
Specialist Care and who may not choose to access due to their health care
philosophy and practise. We also endorse a model of competition within our
health care system to break up the current model of monopoly of
conventional, pharmaceutically-based medicine.  


BEYOND FLAT EARTH MEDICINE

How popular consensus and the medical establishment have often stubbornly
clung to the wrong ideas, unable to think outside the box. When medically
'correct' wasn't always.

A Brief History of Mismanaged Epidemics
[Disease]---[Popular Consensus]---[Actual Cause]

Scurvy------Contagious---Malnutrition: Vitamin C deficiency

Beri-beri---Contagious---Malnutrition: Thiamin deficiency

Maternal Fever---Non-contagious---Contagious: Unsanitary doctor practices

Influenza---Bacteria---Virus

Pellagra----Contagious---Malnutrition: Niacin deficiency

SMON(1950s-70s, Japan)---New Virus---Iatrogenic: Pharmaceutically induced

In science as in the law, the affirmative theory bears the burden of proof
for establishing itself. Those who critique it's establishment in fact,
are not required to reprove or replace another theory of it's aetiology,
especially when immune dysfunction has a multi-factorially influenced set
of unrelated conditions, or according to Alternative Medicine, all
illness/wellness is on a continuum and the result of immune sufficiency or
deficiency.

Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ mode or
'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model or theory of illness which is
confirmed by the work of hundreds of AIDS Dissident Scientists, including
Nobel Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers
in their fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories of
diagnosis[PHILOSOPHY] from the alternative therapies of
treatment[PRACTISE]-- in how Alternative Medicine differentially diagnoses
the individual and treats using a holistic, multi-factorial or
'many-causes, many-courses' approache to illness. They treat the
underlying causes of symptoms, not diagnosing/treating diseases and
certainly not diagnosing/treating syndromes, which are a 'catch-all' of
redefined classifications or catagories of conditions. And therefore,
Alternative Medicine does not generally recognize conventional disease
classifications.

"For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun
substantives."

"There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease
conditions
[or states of dis-ease]."

Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Disease Dissident)

Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the
affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the 'HIV=AIDS'
hypothesis, often compare AIDS Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo
was a Dissident, the Flat Earthers were the mainstream scientific
establishment.

There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think.
Galileo was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of
Jupiter's moons, through his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are
traditionally called the "Galilean" moons, after their discoverer.)
Anyway, he offered to let an influential member of the Clergy look through
the telescope at these moons, so that said clergyman would see what
Galileo had seen. This pious man refused, saying that as long as he did
not look, his religious faith could remain intact.

Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical "church", regarding the HIV
theory; its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! :-) )

Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while
Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The
implication was that Seamen or Sailors engaged in 'buggary' were sexually
transmissing a 'bug.' Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by
the medical and scientific establishment until 1973, a decade later the
medical diagnosis of GRID-- Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described
in the literature.

AIDS DISSIDENT SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY ANALYSIS  

what is hiv?  

No laboratory has ever obtained an undisputed sample of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), despite countless attempts. Most
laboratories, clinics and medical corporations have come to accept
indirect signs, or 'markers', such as antibody reactions, proteins,
genetic fragments, 'virus-like' particles, enzymes - that could suggest a
virus but also other things - as proving the presence and existence of an
'HIV'.  

If such a virus were ever isolated by standards applicable until the late
1970s, the expectations are that it would be a retrovirus - a concept of
viruses adopted in the early 1970s. The genetic code of a retrovirus would
work 'backwards' - 'retro' - transforming RNA to DNA. Most retroviruses
are known as harmless passenger viruses a part of all of endogenous or
naturally occuring genetic make-up. 'HIV' has never been found in
suficient quantities to kill T-Cells and in fact there is no concensus
even after 20+ years as to 'HIV's cytotoxic or cell killing mechanism. For
a decade, researchers thought cancer was caused by a retrovirus. Professor
Peter Duesberg, UC Berkeley, isolated the first retrovirus and is a Father
of Retrovirology says 'HIV' is a harmless passenger virus that does not
cause the syndrome known as 'AIDS.'  

In 1984 some signs suggesting a possible new virus were detected in cell
cultures by the scientific teams of Frenchman Luc Montagnier in Paris, and
American Robert Gallo in Washington, who were trying to explain a single
cause for 'AIDS'. The French called their findings Lymphadenopathy
Associated Virus (LAV), the Americans called theirs Human T-cell
Lymphotrophic Virus III (HTLV-III). The US Government announced at a press
conference in 1984 that a new virus was "the probable cause of AIDS," yet
before any scientific papers inviting peer scrutiny were published. When
such papers appeared in Science some weeks later, a dispute erupted
between Montagnier and Gallo. Gallo was found guilty of scientific
misconduct by a Senate Ethics Committee, for misappropriating material and
photographs of 'virus- like' particles from the French. Because of the
financial stakes - Gallo and the US government applied for a patent for
tests for 'HIV' the day of the press conference - the matter was
eventually solved only by a closed meeting between the scientists which
produced an official history of events, and a meeting between the US and
French Presidents.  

However, neither Gallo nor Montagnier ever managed to purify samples of
the virus they claimed to have detected. Many scientists believe that
without fulfiling this traditional primary requirement of virus isolation,
multiple confusions at the molecular biological level are inevitable over
what or whether anything has actually been found. To this day, primary
purification of 'HIV' has never been achieved. The last attempts,
published in 1997 in Virology, revealed proteins and genetic fragments
from microvesicles - sub-cell particles - but no virus.  

hiv antibody tests  

INDEX OF ARTICLES, PAPERS
http://www.healtoronto.com/hivtest.html


Over the years of the HIV/AIDS theory, different types of test have been
used to try to detect such a virus in patients. These have included (1)
antibody tests, which look for a reaction in a person's blood between
their natural antibodies and synthetic proteins said to belong to HIV, and
(2) Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or 'viral load' genetic tests, which
purport to use part of the virus' genetic code to detect its presence.  

All these tests are indirect, or surrogate. They do not claim to detect
any whole virus. Rather, they use markers to infer whether a virus might
be present. Unfortunately for the accuracy of these tests, these same
markers can be found in a variety of non-HIV situations. No HIV test of
any kind has ever been validated against the one measure that is not
indirect - the gold standard: physical virus isolation. This is because
isolation of HIV by the previously conventional standards of viral
isolation has never been achieved, despite numerous attempts.  

Of the antibody tests for HIV, there are two main types - called ELISA,
and Western Blot. Neither was designed especially for HIV, but are
examples of laboratory methodologies used in many investigations. Around
the world many companies market their versions of the ELISA and Western
Blot antibody tests for HIV.  

However, the uncertain, unvalidated nature of these tests is reflected in
the product literature supplied by their manufacturers.  

A typical example for the ELISA reads:  

"At present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence
or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood." - Axsym
System, Abbott Laboratories  

A typical example for the Western Blot reads:  

"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." -
Epitope, Organon Teknika  




Neither Isolation Nor Validation

Any scientist who declares that a genetic sequence, moreover
a genetic sequence arrived at by human concensus, represents
a naturally occuring virus, has compromised their scientifi integrity. To
further suggest that this genetic sequence represents a competent,
exogenous, sexually transmitted and indeed pathogenic retrovirus is to
enter the realms of pseudo-science. Without HIV isolation all is mere
speculation. Even if HIV were isolated and the proteins tested for by the
ELISA antibody test were actually proteins specific to HIV, an antibody
test would still not be accurate enough for determining actual viral
infection. Everyone tests HIV positive on ELISA if their serum is not
diluted by a factor of 400 because of non-specific antibodies which bind
to any proteins.

"Of course we looked for it [HIV]... We saw some particles but they did
not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses. ... I repeat we
did not purify."  
  ~ Dr. Luc Montagnier, the "discoverer of HIV"  
    (see French transcript of quote from the interview
http://healtoronto.com/lmfrench.html , Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV?
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm
or video)  


"No one believed we really had that many isolates... No one believed we
really meant that..."  
   ~ Dr. Robert Gallo, also discovered "HIV"  
    (see Gallo Investigated http://healtoronto.com/galloindex.html)  

===============================================

RETHINKING SOCALLED 'SAFE-SEX'
SLIDE EFFECTS AND CONDOMANIA [INDEX OF PAPERS]
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/safesex.htm

A LINK TO THREAD WITH OTHER ARTICLES, PAPERS  ["CONDOMNATION"]
http://groups.msn.com/dissident-action/condomnation.msnw

INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY: [MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE AND A
SMALL BOOK ON THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE PRODUCED]

1) Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, yet are not selectively biased
under the PPVs or Positive Predictive Values formulary labeling gay men as
'at risk' for who they love. Prevention education programs focused on
testing and retesting of all gay men which 5% population represented about
40% of all 'HIV' tests given. If they heterosexuals are tested, their
results are more likely to be interpreted as cross-reactive or
indeterminant because they are not in a 'high risk' group, so even if they
would just as frequently test 'HIV' antibody positive they are not being
tested proportionately. The 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests do not
measure 'HIV' infection and with over 60 known cross-reactors, do not
establish probable cause to live and love in fear.

2) Semen may cause minor antigenic stimulation or even immune supression,
which also occurs, byt the way, in women who develop morning sickness upon
conception to allow furtilization of the egg. It has not been established
by Scientists as to the quantity or quality of semen that may be more or
less antigenic stimulation or immune suppressive and this deserves further
study. Human contact and certainly human physical and sexual intimacy is
never 'safe' by nature. Yet gay men have been having anal sex throughout
history, and most gay men who do practise anal sex are not testing 'HIV'
non-specific antibody positive, yet with the added stress upon an emerging
gay subculture and the widespread use of street drugs in the late 1970s,
and other health-style factors that are important in all illness/wellness
equations-- combined to contribute to aquired immune deficiencies among a
certain sub-set of gay men. Yet, all gay men were assumed 'at risk' by the
CDC in the 1980s because 'AIDS' was assumed to have a homosexual pathology
or sexual transmission, even though there were many known health-style
factors of the original sub-group of gay men, originally described as
'GRID'[Gay Related Immune Deficiency]. This, even though all of the CDC's
official 29 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those diagnosed 'HIV'
negative and all have well documented causes and treatments unrelated to
'HIV/AIDS.' KS is one of the original defining condition, originally
called the 'gay cancer' was first described in the literature in the 1800s
and is seen today among middle eastern men. Today, KS is rarely seen in
'AIDS' patients and remains confined to gay men diagnosed with 'AIDS'
though Gallo, the alleged 'co-discover' of the putative 'HIV' and other
mainstream researchers admit KS likely has been correlated to amyl
nitrites or "poppers" used by some gay men and another virus associated
with it, HHV-8.

3) Anal health and hygiene, colon hydrotherapy, colonics, fasting, diet
all are important illness preventives including reconsidering certain anal
sex practises, fisting or rough, "unsanitary" sex. This might include the
pull out method or accessing your partners general health while taking
steps to sustain your own general health. Anal retentive focus on "bugs"
or hypochondriacal sex-negativity are anathma to a holistic or
multi-factorial, 'many-cause, many-courses' wellness promotion strategy.
Where is the evidence that anal receptive partners or "bottoms" are the
gay men testing socalled positive and the anal insertive partners or
"tops" are the ones testing negative? This is the major impediment to the
statement by even some AIDS Dissidents who propose anal receptive sex,
without controlling for the amounts and quality of semen or seminal fluid
which might be inherrantly immune suppressive.

4) Latex condoms and chemically carcingen-containing lubes role in immune
suppression and the astronomical increase in anal cancer rates, from
allergic to immunologic and even death, particularly among gay men. These
products were never studied for internal (anal) use, were never approved
for such and indicate for *topical use only* on package inserts.

5) Many STDs are not alleged to be spread through semen or seminal fluid,
but sores and saliva. Condoms have not been shown effective in preventing
most common STDs. Even if one 'contracts' these bugs, approximately 80-90%
of those are said to be 'carriers' who do not develop chronic symptoms in
their lifetimes, clear it from their bodies naturally after a short course
of conventional antiboitic treatment or preferably through the more
prophylactic use of alternative, non-toxic immune enhancing therapies--
thus calling into question the significance of the bug-seed versus the
human host or organizms' role in immune sufficiency and sustainability.

"Zim" <zim@irk.gov> wrote in message

Troll.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

No, you are not a gay man.  You are a writer who is using a catching
phrase to get the attention of the reader.  

Now let me rant a bit about the noise the gay community has been making

In some parts of the world that may be true.

or in any other community.  Heterosexual drug users in rich
neighbourhoods and the
poor skidrow environment take lots of risks.  

You are absolutely correct.  Mad Cow disease is an excellent example.
Little
testing of beef is done and those infected that pass it on in blood
transfussions.

It is writing like this that confirms that this is not written by a
homosexual.

You said:  < Now let me rant a bit about the noise
the gay community has been making over the prohibition on men who've
had sex
with other men from donating blood.>
------------------------------

So, while any seropositive is already excluded from donating blood
either being Gay or not, you are definitively talking about
seronegative Gays that want to donate blood and not being allowed to.

Let alone the doubts I have that this subject might comply with the
netiquette of this forum, I just follow the example of others that
seem not to having such doubts and so,
I think:

First: One should know the REAL CONTEXT of this issue not to easily be
tempted to lateralizing the main discussion with subjective
projections on the base of fantasies and ghosts of each one's
sexuality or politic wing incline.

Second: As we don't know the REAL CONTEXT, at least, how does the
Lawmaking Body define such Gayety from such Gays that can't donate
such Blood?

Third: *IF* the Lawmaking Body defines Gayety as *a chronic and
compulsive anal sperm reception* I thing IMHO that the law is not that
bad designed because there are dozens of active illnesses and, 'soit
dizant', dormant illnesses associated with that behavior that are not
individually scanned and having NO CURE mainly when co-associated or
cross reacting with other antigens which that Gayety definition
predispose much above any other sexual behaviors.
As these co associations KILL besides all the trivial attempted cures,
"HIV" was the providential alibi that integrated all those uncured
"bugs" in a single mirage (retroviral-like particles), from the worst
science that quickly saw how to brain wash the anguished crowds with
its simple chameleonic turning into a new Religion promising a new
Messiah: The Salvation in the form of a new vaccine for The new evil,
AIDS.
Meanwhile, with the invention of "HIV", the holopathic medical
establishment could finally hide its incompetence in an artificial and
unproved unified cause much more inconsistent than the old Lucifer
promissing Heaven.

Forth: One should not through out the baby with the bath water as well
as not confounding being an AIDS DISSIDENT with being a promoter of
the "Russian roulette's suicide".

Fifth: Let alone this small subset in between homosexuals, the
discussion about who could or couldn't donate its blood should never
be taken, IMO anyhow, on the base of the sexual promiscuity as it is
ridiculous to subdivide Gays or the Straights so called alternative
into subclasses. But I wonder why people that *eventually* don't even
blink when tying to hide the most profits and incomes they can from
IRS, be so concern and apparently guilty(?)about hiding, as well, its
sexual promiscuity when donating blood, for instance, to a close
relative.

Sixth: Actually, the Establishment would be much more coherent and
paranoiac free suspects demanding a quick  H.L.B. Bradford-Blood-Test
to every blood donor instead of trying provocatively the feed back of
the Lobby Gay in order to solve the sexual inidentity of magistrates
majority.

Karl   

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