 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2006Mandatory HIV testing
!!! Mandatory HIV-testing: The ultimate savior of humanity. !!! HIV and Aids celebrate their 25th birthday this Year of the Lord, 2006. Which means they're grown-ups. Yet many people continue to live with them without even knowing they are there. This must be stopped. Can parents continue to ignore their 25 years old child? Of course not. Compared to a flu, a bad cough, headaches, diarrhea, a heart attack, etc, etc, which cannot possibly be ignored by the owner, HIV and Aids can be very silent inhabitants of the host, only to be detected through specially designed testing material. Which, in a certain way, is quite natural because, after all, HIV and Aids being constructions of the human mind, they can only be brought into life if you search for them believing very hard they exist. Mandatory HIV testing may be, and even more: should be, considered as the ultimate savior of mankind. Please, allow me to explain, sit still and carefully read the following. Although not much is known, nor about the real functioning of tests like Western-Blot, Elisa, PCR, and the like, neither about how results should be interpret, it has become clear over the years that drug addicts and poor and hungry people in general make up the overwhelming majority of the world's HIV hosts. Practice has also taught us that if testing in itself does almost never enable the tester to be sure of the HIV status of the person being tested, subjective judgment of that person by an experienced tester who can tell, by simply looking at somebody's face, who and what that person stands for, always provides the desired result. If we add to that particular practice the fact that immunity-deficiency is very often simply caused by malnutrition and drug abuse, mandatory testing will make it possible (Finally! Thank God, thank Allah, thank Buddha, thank Shiva, thank every God in the book) to separate the poor, the bad and the ugly from the good. AZT, ARVs etc. will do the rest, deliver the world from evil and paradise will be ours. Ours, that is, if you're in it. I'll be in it for sure. Will you? Look at me for some seconds please. hmm. eyes close together. badly shaved. no ironing. I don't know, sorry. Oh, I forget. This will only work if chemo treatment will become mandatory too. Of course. -- _________________________ http://www.nightsofarmour.com >!!! Mandatory HIV-testing: The ultimate savior of humanity. !!! >.... HIV and Aids being constructions of the >human mind, they can only be brought into life if you search for them believing very hard >they exist. Right. Some people refuse to believe in infectious diseases altogether. David Pasquarelli refused to believe in HIV. Said he was fine. Everything hunky dory. Then he developed AIDS. Then he died. And that's what will happen to anyone with HIV that listens to your deluded crap. George M. Carter > Some people refuse to believe in infectious diseases altogether. David > Pasquarelli refused to believe in HIV. Said he was fine. Everything > hunky dory. > > Then he developed AIDS. Then he died. Other people do believe in HIV. They get their treatment every day. They never develop Aids. They never die. Ha, Ha, Ha... You really are a funny nerd, Georgie boy >> Some people refuse to believe in infectious diseases altogether. David >> Pasquarelli refused to believe in HIV. Said he was fine. Everything [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Other people do believe in HIV. They get their treatment every day. They never develop >Aids. They never die. Some people believe in insulin-dependent diabetes. They get their treatment every day. If they don't, they die sooner. We all die. >Ha, Ha, Ha... > >You really are a funny nerd, Georgie boy Thank you, Jannie-poopsie. George Nerd Carter > >!!! Mandatory HIV-testing: The ultimate savior of humanity. !!! > >.... HIV and Aids being constructions of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > George M. Carter Reply to GM Carter: Dear GM Carter, I am a Board Certified MD with 25 years experience diagnosing and treating AIDs patients and I am opposed to the new CDC proposal for mandatory HIV testing of low-risk people who come into contact with the medical system at emergency rooms and ambulatory care centers. This is BAD medical practice. In addition, I urge all physicians to stand up and join with me in opposition to these new HIV testing policies proposed by the CDC. The new CDC recommendation to routinely perform HIV antibody testing on the entire low-risk population is a BAD IDEA. This is why: "Elite Controllers" are HIV positives who are alive and well without disease for many years without ever taking anti-HIV drugs. Although current opinion suggests these are rare individuals, my opinion is that they are not so rare and many more will be stepping forward to identify themselves to participate in the Mass General Hospital study. My point is that this is a population of HIV positive people who never get sick and don't have a disease. The risks of toxic anti-HIV drugs (bone marrow suppression, liver failure and Stevens Johnson Syndrome) is far greater to them than the theoretical risk of Kaposi's Sarcoma or Pneumocystis Carinii pneumonia which are the hallmark of classic AIDS as first described in the San Francisco Gay population in the early 1980's. We know that the Elite Controllers are not rare because the CDC estimates that there are a quarter million HIV positives in the low-risk general population who are unaware of their HIV status. These people are generally healthy and find no reason to seek out medical testing and are probably Elite Controllers. The new CDC recommendations to test all these low-risk people in the general population will merely identify Elite Controllers in the population and then recommend to them the standard toxic anti-HIV drug treatment which is far more dangerous to their health than their HIV positive status which will not cause a disease in this population. I am a Board Certified MD with 25 years experience diagnosing and treating AIDs patients and I am opposed to the new CDC proposal for mandatory HIV testing of low-risk people who come into contact with the medical system at emergency rooms and ambulatory care centers. This is BAD medical practice. In addition, I urge all physicians to stand up and join with me in opposition to these new HIV testing policies proposed by the CDC. Signed: www.drdach.com jdach wrote... > We know that the Elite Controllers are not rare because the CDC > estimates that there are a quarter million HIV positives in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > treatment which is far more dangerous to their health than their HIV > positive status which will not cause a disease in this population. You're forgetting that the alleged purpose of routine testing is to make the patient aware of his HIV+ status so he will take precautions to avoid transmitting the virus to his partners. You're whining that this would have a negative effect on "Elite Controllers" who are naturally resistant to the virus and would actually be harmed by the conventional HIV treatments, but you don't bother to consider that these healty Elite Controllers are still able to transmit the virus to people who don't have natural resistance. I've always noticed a selfish angle surrounding HIV: it's always about how the virus affects the victim and not those around him, it's always about how the rest of society must be endangered so as not to inconvenience him. The thought of testing him just so he can learn his HIV+ status so as to take precautions to avoid infecting others never even crossed your mind, all you worry about is the side- effects he might experience from drug treatment. > I am a Board Certified MD with 25 years experience diagnosing and > treating AIDs patients and I am opposed to the new CDC proposal for > mandatory HIV testing of low-risk people who come into contact with the > medical system at emergency rooms and ambulatory care centers. This is > BAD medical practice... But why? More diagnosed HIV cases means more HIV patients for you to treat (I've always suspected that the medical/pharmaceutical industries encourage the spread of HIV). I can only assume that your opposition is because you fear that it might work and cost you lots of business. I'm opposed to the proposal unless it was made mandatory, and even then I have a hard time with that idea as it is so un-American. *** BUT *** I might be willing to consider the idea *** IF *** it is done on a global scale. Since there is no way to seal the USA off from the rest of the world, it makes to sense to impose a mandatory national testing system as long infected foreigners are able to enter the country untested. The goal of globally eradicating smallpox was sufficiently important to warrant forced vaccinations and because it was a concerted international effort it stood a chance of success. This proposal stands no chance of success even if the routine testing were mandatory. "crack baby" <crack@backdoho.net> wrote in message > jdach wrote... > > We know that the Elite Controllers are not rare because the CDC [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > make the patient aware of his HIV+ status so he will take precautions > to avoid transmitting the virus to his partners. You're whining ... Notice there is no deaths reported at the time the article appeared. Compare that to reported deaths due to hiv/aids and ....... .....well you get my point. Oh, and don't go to the Blue Oyster Bar and Gloryhole and light up a cigarette. Some studies show second hand smoke may cause cancer in lab rats confined in small glass houses. Bush Expands Forced Quarantine Policy From Greg Cruey Apr 5 2003 SARS now on the list... It has been over 20 years since the list of infectious diseases for which Americans could be forcibly quarantined has been altered. This week President Bush added SARS to the list. That puts SARS in the company of such illnesses as Smallpox, Yellow Fever, and the Plague. Including SARS, the list now has eight diseases on it, the other four being Cholera, Diphtheria, infectious Tuberculosis, and the various forms of Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers (like Ebola, Lassa, Crimean-Congo, etc). There are 115 suspected cases of SARS in the U.S. spread over 29 states. No deaths from SARS have been reported in the U.S. to date. The U.S. has not suffered near the trauma that neighboring Canada has over the disease. In Canada, the city of Toronto has quarantine hundreds (perhaps thousands) of residents, closed two hospitals where infected patients have been treated, and experienced panic buying of surgical masks by the public. jdach wrote..., On 09/22/2006 12:01: >>>!!! Mandatory HIV-testing: The ultimate savior of humanity. !!! >>>.... HIV and Aids being constructions of the [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > treatment which is far more dangerous to their health than their HIV > positive status which will not cause a disease in this population. You're forgetting that the alleged purpose of routine testing is to make the patient aware of his HIV+ status so he will take precautions to avoid transmitting the virus to his partners. You're whining that this would have a negative effect on "Elite Controllers" who are naturally resistant to the virus and would actually be harmed by the conventional HIV treatments, but you don't bother to consider that these healty Elite Controllers are still able to transmit the virus to people who don't have natural resistance. I've always noticed a selfish angle surrounding HIV: it's always about how the virus affects the victim and not those around him, it's always about how the rest of society must be endangered so as not to inconvenience him. > I am a Board Certified MD with 25 years experience diagnosing and > treating AIDs patients and I am opposed to the new CDC proposal for > mandatory HIV testing of low-risk people who come into contact with the > medical system at emergency rooms and ambulatory care centers... But why? More diagnosed HIV cases means more HIV patients for you to treat. > You're forgetting that the alleged purpose of routine testing is to > make the patient aware of his HIV+ status so he will take precautions [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > affects the victim and not those around him, it's always about how > the rest of society must be endangered so as not to inconvenience him. drdach wrote: Your assumption of transmission risk by Elite Controllers is false. After 20 years of HIV research, there has never been a documented case (in the medical literature) of HIV or AIDS disease transmitted from Elite Controller to another person (spouse or partner) through heterosexual contact, so the idea that by testing these people we will reduce transmission rate is false. There is no transmission risk from Elite Controllers. In addition, heterosexual transmission between couples is actually quite rare and may never happen after many years of contact in some couples as reported by Dr. MacGregor, Horsburgh and Levy: (see references below) MacGregor RR et al. Failure of culture and polymerase chain reaction to detect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in seronegative steady sexual partners of HIV-infected individuals. Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Jul;21(1):122-7. Horsburgh CR et al. Concordance of polymerase chain reaction with HIV antibody detection. J Infect Dis. 1990 Aug;162:542-5. Levy JA. The transmission of AIDS: the case of the infected cell. JAMA. 1988;259(20):3037-8. Regards from www.drdach.com jdach wrote... > There is no transmission risk from Elite Controllers... So you are willing to allow one of them to f.ck you in the a.s without a condom? Over the years I've noticed a tendency for HIV advocates to claim "little or no risk" for whatever possible mode of transmission, yet none of them are willing to expose themselves to the virus in that particular way. In this case you claim that it is impossible for the elite controller to transmit the virus, yet you are not volunteering to let him f.ck you in the a.s to prove your hypothesis. They will talk about how harmless that big bucket full of AIDS-infected blood is because it is "impossible" to spread through skin contact, but they won't stick their hands in it. >Reply to GM Carter: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >medical system at emergency rooms and ambulatory care centers. This is >BAD medical practice. First, what CDC is proposing is NOT mandatory--it is voluntary. HOWEVER--I ALSO oppose it but primarily because they are doing it to find out where the meager resources for ADAP and Ryan White funding should be concentrated--that's why Frieden, NYC's Health Commissioner is so hot on it. It is NOT about the people being tested. Counselling is a HUGE part of testing and it is being stripped away, in the dienst ist dienst, arbeit macht frei world of ever-increasing "efficiency" that we live in. It is horribly stupid because good counselling can help people to get creating their own empowerment in terms of prevention practices and also developing a readiness to undertake and commit to ARV when that is appropriate. As to whether a significant proportion are elite controllers, I rather doubt it. Far too many people wind up in the hospital with AIDS after long refusal to test for HIV. Not because they're denialists in the sense of a.sholes like Jannie poopbrain, but rather many folks are in denial about their risk of being HIV+ or their exposure. It's frightening, daunting. Dealing with the healthcare system is a nightmare very often. And then people wind up in the hospital with PCP or MAI. But guess what? It doesn't matter a tinker's dam what either of us believe. Bush will have his way because so few actually stand up to the psychotic, lying bullshit that comes out of their mouths every single day. This administration is quite likely the very worst in US history. George M. Carter GMCarter wrote... > First, what CDC is proposing is NOT mandatory--it is voluntary. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > arbeit macht frei world of ever-increasing "efficiency" that we live > in. And I oppose it because the proposal costs so much and most of that money goes to "counselors" who get paid $500/hour to lecture brain- dead fucktards who will ignore the advice anyway. And that's precisely why the HIV advocates have fiercely resisted sales of home HIV tests, because it cuts the counselors out of the loop and costs the activist industry billions of federal Ryan White dollars. This testing proposal puts the advocates in a difficult position. Increased testing might mean less new HIV infections in the future, but at the same time it would increase the number of people at present could be "counseled" at a cost of several trillion dollars billed to the U.S. health care system. >GMCarter wrote... >> First, what CDC is proposing is NOT mandatory--it is voluntary. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >money goes to "counselors" who get paid $500/hour to lecture brain- >dead fucktards who will ignore the advice anyway. LOL...what a complete load of crap. Name me ONE counselor for newly diagnosed people with HIV that gets anything REMOTELY close to $500 per hour. Your ignorance is only matched by your inner stores of hate. I hope you find healing, dear. I have doubt that you will though. You seem to be quite trapped by your own ugliness. It's a tough disease you suffer. George M. Carter GMCarter wrote... >>And I oppose it because the proposal costs so much and most of that >>money goes to "counselors" who get paid $500/hour to lecture brain- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > diagnosed people with HIV that gets anything REMOTELY close to $500 > per hour. You're correct, the counseling lasts 5 minutes and consists of advice to wear condoms, but the state is billed $500 for an effective rate of $10,000 an hour. Maybe you could tell us how much these "counselors" actually earn and what percentage of scarce Ryan White funding goes to them as opposed to the medical doctors and pharmacies? Knowing people with AIDS, I can tell you they are they stupidest, most dain-bramaged, fucktarded pieces of sh.t on earth. I recently met someone who claims to be HIV-, but the more I talk to him the more I realize he is not all there and he engages in the usual deadly sex practices with KNOWN AIDS patients. The more I talk to him the more I realize he is incredibly stupid (as in uneducated, he also didn't know who Mao Tse Tung was but does know the location of every gay bar in the American West). If I were a counselor I would counsel him to always wear a condom when having sex, and his cracked-out brain would interpret is as always using chopsticks when eating pistachio ice cream. >GMCarter wrote... >>>And I oppose it because the proposal costs so much and most of that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >to wear condoms, but the state is billed $500 for an effective rate >of $10,000 an hour. Provide evidence for this outre claim. Sigh. Troll. George M. Carter >>You're correct, the counseling lasts 5 minutes and consists of advice >>to wear condoms, but the state is billed $500 for an effective rate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sigh. Troll. Diablo/Death, or didn't you get that yet? B/ "Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote in message > Diablo/Death, or didn't you get that yet? There can't be 2 people laughing at us, please God! LOL. >>>You're correct, the counseling lasts 5 minutes and consists of advice >>>to wear condoms, but the state is billed $500 for an effective rate [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Diablo/Death, or didn't you get that yet? Oh, of course I did. >!!! Mandatory HIV-testing: The ultimate savior of humanity. !!! > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Oh, I forget. This will only work if chemo treatment will become mandatory too. Of course. Is the proposal "mandatory testing"...? From what I've read patients will be *asked* to take the test.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.