DEATH writes: << Hello Kelly, Do you not believe same sex is the
outstanding cause of aids transmission? >>

Dear "Death,"

Well, that's the official line of the AIDS Authorities. Yet since I
question authority when it doesn't make sense, I disblieve gay men are 'at
risk' for who they love. What I actually believe is that the AIDS Industry
Apologists have selectively biased gay men in terms of 'HIV' testing
policy and procedure.

SMART BUGS ER SMART BOMBS?

HIV cannot be the cause or the sole cause of AIDS. Why would a virus
infect 1% of the US population and 30% of some African countries? Why
would a virus cause different symptoms depending on your age, gender, race
or sexual orientation and geographic location? Why hasn't 20 years worth
of research and billions of dollars spent created a vaccine or cure or
safe and effective treatment? Why do the pharmaceutical companies, AIDS
Industry and government agencies censor the scientists, doctors and
laypeople that raise these critical questions and provide reasonable
answers? AIDS Dissidents raise critical questions about the accuracy and
specificity of the 'HIV' antibody tests and the redefinition and
misdiagnosis of all the old diseases that are now lumped under the 'AIDS'
catagory-- as well as the safety and efficacy of drug cocktails, condoms
and lubricants. After more than 20 years and billions of dollars in
research, there is still no proof that anyone has ever been infected with
a retrovirus that is the underlying cause of all the old diseases now
called '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.

BUGGERY, BUG CHASING and BAREBACKING  
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=619.1

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

A LINK TO DISCUSSION THREAD WITH OTHER ARTICLES, PAPERS ON THE SAFETY AND
EFFICACY OF CONDOMS ["CONDOMNATION"]
http://groups.msn.com/dissident-action/condomnation.msnw

INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY:

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 overstimulation or even temporary and
minor immune supression, which also occurs, by 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. We risk our
most intimate and whole selves. 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.

==========================================
What are PPVs?                                   Positive Predictive
Values  
==========================================



SERO-SUSPECT CLASS?   SEX=DEATH?

ARE GAY MEN "AT RISK" FOR WHO THEY/WE LOVE?

PPVs or Positive Prediction Values. What are they and how can and does
this statistical formulae effect the cummulatively estimated 'HIV' tests
conducted world-wide?

The following is taken from UNAIDS and World Health Organisation(WHO)
"Operational characteristics of commercially available assays to determine
antibodies to hiv-1 and/or hiv-2 in human sera."

Report 9/10 Geneva 1998. Distribution limited. Page 11 WHO/UNAIDS: "The
PROBABILITY that a test will ACCURATELY DETERMINEthe TRUE infection status
of a PERSON being tested VARIES with theprevalence of HIV infection in the
POPULATION from which the personcomes."

How can 'prevalence' of "hiv infection" in the population at largebe
determined in the first place and then, by mathmatical extrapolation tothe
individual from whom which the formulae was circularly and
selectivelybased er biased? By other indirect, socalled surrogate markers,
'HIV'[non-specific]antibody positivity + PPV formulation + High Risk
groupinformation ie: "status" or "membership."

To restate, how was this Positive Predictive Value [PPV] or the
individuals socalled "high risk" status calculated, determinedand/or
verified? By other indirect 'HIV' antibody test kits + PPV + High Risk
Group Information or selective classificationor bias, circular and
self-fulfilling by designation?

Page 11 continued: WHO/UNAIDS/Geneva/1998/Report9/10: "In general, the
higher the prevalence of HIV infection in the population, the greater the
PROBABILITY that a person testing positive is truly infected (i.e., the
greater the positive predictive value [PPV]).

Thus, with increasing prevalence, the proportion of serum samples
testing-false-positivedecreases; conversely, the likelihood that a person
showing negative testresults is truly uninfected (i.e., the negative
predictive value [NPV]),decreases as prevalence increases. Therefore, as
prevalence increases, so does the proportion of samples testing
false-negative."

There's FUNDAMENTAL FLAW here called SELECTIVE BIAS. It means UNAIDS/WHO's
Positive Predictive Values [PPV] selectively bias gay men who do not
represent a monolithic health-style. Some Dissidents say there is abundant
evidence that ALL the "high risks groups" are far more likely to test
*false* positive because they are far more likely to be exposed to one of
the 70+ conditions that can generate 'HIV' antibodies in the absence of
'HIV' positivity such as Africans who may actually have TB (a very large
number of 'AIDS' cases in Africa are TB or malaria cases and TB and
malaria causesso-called *false* positives and/or malnutrition, wasting) or
gay men who are theorized to have greater exposure to recreational drugs
or anally deposited semen, assuming that were immune modulating.

Other Dissidents, such as myself, maintain there is insuficient evidence
thatthese socalled "high risk groups" represent uniformely any
inherenthealth risk due to gender identity, racial classification or
sexualorientation. Whereas, the predonderance of 'HIV' positivity or
"aquired immune deficiencies" in these groups are not comparable or
correlative tothe general population because they are selectively biased.

Therefore, if you put any people under a microscope, in this case a moral
and medical microscrope focused in a certain period, and announced, we
found these microbes, germs, bugs, cooties, etc. and didn't really compare
these socalled 'high-risk' groups, especially gay men which do not have
any monolithic life orhealthstyle contrary to popular cultures'
heterosexist conjecture, withthe general population, you wouldn't know
what if any correlation existedand whether that established causation. So
even if there was a correlation between 'HIV' positivity and gay men,
showing they were far more likely tobe exposed to one of the 70 agents,
factors, conditions known to cause so-called *false* positivity, it can
only be said to mean they are more likely to be determined, "interpreted"
as a "true" positive because you were selectively biased as 'high risk'
because of the inherantflaw or circular construct the 'HIV=AIDS' theory is
entirely reliant upon.While it was true that the original subset of gay
men who were diagnosedat the start of the socalled 'epidemic' were all
sick, they did not haveany direct sexual connection to one another, and
all shared certain health-style factors that were ignored as co-causal
agents of their illnesses. It was then extrapolated to say all gay men
were inherantly 'at risk' because of the assumption that an outbreak of
reported illnesses in gay men must be sexually transmissed. Many of these
men were diagnosed as having STIs/STIs but also took prophylactic or
on-going, regular antibiotics which are known to have immune suppressive
side-effects.

There is not sufficient evidence to establish there are a disproportionate
number of antibodies among selectively biased 'high risk' groups,
specifically excluding gay men who have no single, monolithic life or
health-style in common or if they have controlled for the disproportionate
number of tests done on them. About 40% of 'HIV' tests in the US are done
on gay men, which only represent about 5% of the US population. But then
this information is transmitted to the lab anddoctor and the tests are
interpreted as positive more often if you are preselectively biased as
'high risk.' So, it seems sort of a circular construct. And the evidence
of the lack of any heterosexual epidemic after 20 years in the West where
they actually do the 'HIV' tests, unlike mostAfrican 'AIDS' cases, does
not fulfill the infectious model or it wouldhave spread to the 95%
majority heterosexuals by now.

The original sub-group of gay men did have certain health styles in
common, but thenthe initial socalled 'AIDS' cases was not confined to
those 'health risk'groups with many known co-causal factors ignored, but
it was extrapolatedto include all gay men, regardless of life or health
style.

This is why I say that the mindset of 'SAME-SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' lead to
the unquestioned acceptance of 'HIV=AIDS=DEATH.' It was just ten years
before the announcement of 'HIV' as the cause of 'AIDS' that homosexuality
was removed as a psychiatric disorder by the APA because of cultural bias
andreligious prejudices which lead to scientific predeterminations.  

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

In science as in the law, the affirmative statement bares the burden of
proof. The burden of proof is not upon AIDS Dissenters or Dissidents to
prove a negative, that the putative 'HIV' DOES NOT exist and DOES NOT
cause illnesses attributed to 'AIDS.' The burden of proof is upon the AIDS
Apologists or HIV Protagonists who AFFIRM that 'HIV' exists and is
pathogenic or disease-causing. If you or anyone takes to time to read the
information below and follow the referenced links and then demand a
response to every critique and challenge, you will have no choice but to
conclude the 'HIV' theory of immuno-deficiency is sorely lacking of
evidence. Correlation is not causation and there are many known co-causal
factors to aquiring immune deficiencies. We don't act AS IF something were
true until it has been proven to be true, especially when there are major
life and love-affecting consequences to just going along with the
'HIV/AIDS' theory or model, if it were not valid.

What would it take for you to do the following?

Take away someone's human, civil rights.
Socially alienate someone.
Poison someone.
Condemn someone to death.
Criminalise someone for an act of love.
Destroy someone's marriage/family/relationship.
Deny someone basic, even life-saving, medical treatment.

The above actions happen every day in the name of HIV/AIDS and include
taking children off their parents and forcibly testing and poisoning them.
A huge amount of information, some of it in this e-mail, shows beyond a
doubt that the source of all this misery and stigma, i.e. the
establishment position that HIV is the cause AIDS, is flawed and has
failed.

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 and Lesbian?)

The conflict between the virus/germ or 'one-cause, one-course/cure'
drug-based model and the holistic multi-factorial, 'many-causes,
many-courses/cures' model actually predates the modern AIDS Dissident
Scientific era... "Beauchamp and Pasteur: Beauchamp, a contemporary of
Pasteur's, differed with Pasteur on a number of theoretical models.
Whereas Pasteur felt that bacteria["bugs"] were the "all" (primary and
sufficient cause) in illness or dis-ease, Beauchamp felt that the inner
terrain (biological or human host, interior milieu) was far more important
in determining whether illness or dis-ease manifested or not." Although
his theory of dis-ease was generally rejected in favor of Pasteur's, it
was later adopted by Alternative Medicine.

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.

BUGGERY, BUG-CHASING and BAREBACKING

Bug-Chasers have gotten more publicity of late with films like "The Gift"
which discuss the small subset of gay men and subset of bare-backers.
Bug-Chasers are those who fantasize the idea of becoming 'impregnated' or
filled up with 'seed' and sero-converting to a socalled 'HIV' positive
status. Bug-chasers are bug-believers in that they accept, consciously at
least, that there is a bug or virus called 'HIV' that has been properly
isolated and can be accurately tested for. Bare-backers, on the other
hand, are those who, for whatever reason, do not use condoms or practise
socalled 'safe-sex' at least part of the time. This is a much larger group
than those who are socalled "bug-chasers" and include many gay men who are
subconsciously rebelling against the puritan sex panic or health scare
campaign of the condom nazis. Most bare-backers are not bug-chasers,
though all bug-chasers are bare-backers. AIDS Dissidents, as bug
dis-believers, are not included among the 'bug-chasers' though do include
bare-backers and a growing number of the 'HIV' disaffected who are not
living *in [HIV] denial* but rather informed in their AIDS dissent, and
subsequently do not accept the evidence for probable cause to live and
love in fear.